Slashdot Mirror
Defining Google
pbaumgar writes "Did anyone catch the 60 Minutes piece on Google this evening? They mention their hiring process a bit in the story: 'For example, Google is hiring about 25 new people every week, and receives more than 1,000 resumes a day. But they're determined to stick to their rigorous screening process. Google uses aptitude tests, which it has even placed in technical magazines, hoping some really big brains would tackle the hardest problems. Score well on the test, and you might get a job interview. And then another and another. One recent hire had 14 interviews before getting the job - and that was in the public relations department.' As a person who recently interviewed with them this past summer (I didn't get the job), I was wondering what others' experiences were like who interview with Google. I had 4 interviews, and it was by far the longest and most interesting interviewing process I've been involved in. I'd love to hear others' experiences in their attempt to get hired."
For some reason I can't see 60 Seconds including a little passage about Brin's splurging action, mentioned in the quote.
Working at google is an easy gig to get. Just get on with the cleaning crew that does their office or something.
Working FOR google is a whole different ball game.
I had a headhunter call me and ask if I was willing to work for $13.00 an hour.
Nah!
The insistency of some companies to require a batchelors degree often leaves otherwise qualified applicants out in the cold. Google is one of these companies (from my experience browsing the job postings), which sucks for college students looking for a job. Oh well.
They told me they only hire the top 0.000000000000000001% of all programmers. Funny, every other company I interviewed at said the same thing, give or take a magnitude.
Or does Google sound like Microsoft more and more everyday?
It's just you. Google still has "do no evil" as one of their company guidelines. They also accept the fact that their will be other large players in the markets they are in and that they won't be the only ones. When Google starts putting out products that suck (as quickly as they possibly can), have the aim of monopolizing as much as they possibly can and crushing competitors, then you can claim they sound like Microsoft.
I also got that impression that Google is like Microsoft in its infancy - with a key difference - 2 billion in cash. Despite all the stories that Gates was born with a golden spoon in his mouth and he stumbled into a good deal with IBM - he built Microsoft into what it is today. Will an advertising-only based revenue model ever get Google to Microsoft size? Time will tell if Google can stand the test of time.
Note that while you are saying this, you have your gmail address plain out for everyone on /. to read and abuse. I don't think you really dislike google ...
--- Sigmentation Fault - Comments Dumped
Google still has "do no evil" as one of their company guidelines.
A guideline that went right out the window when it came time to help the Chinese government try and prevent Chinese citizens from seeing things on the net that their government doesn't want them to see.
Especially if you already have a job and the current employer doesn't know you're in the market.
14 interviews!? There are only so many flat tires and sick aunts one can come up with for missing a couple of hours of work.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Do all the jobs require an appitutude test? Or just the high ranking ones?
Almost every job does. Most of the time the aptitude test is how well you are at faking the type of person the interviewer wants.
Yes, I'm bitter and cynical. That does not make me wrong.
I had *10 hours* of interviews for a company that didn't end up hiring *ANYONE*, for a shity 50k a year entry position (yes, 50k a year is shitty in the area it was in when an apartment costs 1500/m).
A friend of mine got hired for a company who wanted an expert in *3* non-related research fields (he has a PHD and luckily and experience in those fields). He flew up there and did several *days* of interviews, Then they called him back and said he would also have to be an expert in Unix and could he fly back up to meet their Unix team.
We were able to maniupulate the test conditions and make him appear to be a unix expert. Hes been employed for a couple months now, and has worked entirely as a unix admin, which isnt even what hes hired for.
The job market is nothing less then crazy
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
When answering a search request, Google does not search the Internet. It searches its index.
The index does not reflect the Internet, but the World Wide Web. And only a small part of it, with the Deep Web being much larger.
Algorithms are not computer code.
Please don't give us more of those regular media articles on Google. They mostly suck when it comes to the technical side. And we have all heard about the free food a gazillion times.
The /. fortune for this article seems strangely relevant.
To every Ph.D. there is an equal and opposite Ph.D. -- B. Duggan
My current boss got so enthusiastic while reading my CV that he completely forgot to ask any questions that would check whether it's true or not :) Luckily my work doesn't involve deep knowledge IRIX, SunOS, VNC, embedded Linux or SCADA systems, otherwise I'd be in trouble :) He just wanted someone who learns fast...
"We bought that new device and it's quite sophisticated and with very specialized software, and we need someone to learn how to use it. Can you do this?"
"Is the documentation available?"
"Yes."
"I can do this."
"Great, you're hired."
(yes, I could.)
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
I just finished up with a graduate e-Commerce class in which we did a large case study on Google. They tend to be super-cutting-edge in almost every aspect of their business from technology to revenue generation, so it should come as no surprise that they are extraordinarily innovative in their hiring practices. One of the key things I remember reading about is their extraordinarily high employee satisfaction ratings, so it follows that a whole lotta people would want to work there. So, with a stack of highly qualified resumes like that (they hire a ton of PhDs), you have to expect them to use some pretty unorthodox methods to choose the creme de la creme.
I remember a few years ago they ran a contest to see who could come up with the best project presentation solving some big issue in search technology, and I think I remember hearing about them making the guy who won a big offer (can't remember what the project was on...I'll try to find a link in a minute).
On the other hand, we have IBM, where I start my job this month. The job is in their Business Consulting Services division, and their interviewing process was totally on the other end of the spectrum. I had two rounds of non-technical behavioral interviews, and don't believe they ever even checked my references. Go figure. I would think that IBM would have a large amount of applicants as well and that they would want to be a bit more picky about their interviewing process, but I guess I'm not going to complain because at least I'll be getting a paycheck (I went back to grad school after getting laid off...don't look a gift horse in the mouth, I guess).
That's a pretty shortsighted view.
Sure, they assisted in censorship of information. However, you should also realise that had they not then google would likely have been blocked from access by the chinese government. In that case, the Chinese citizens would have lost a very valuable resource for finding information. And despite their efforts, it's highly likely that there is still a great deal of information to be found on google that the Chinese governement doesn't want its citizens to see.
I interviewed about 3 weeks ago at the hq. it was a pretty laborious process.
first I got the e-mail, said it would be a 3-3.5 hour interview. this is apparently normal stuff for google interviewing procedure.
so I show up about 20 minutes early dressed in business professional attire. they have a very cool lobby, lava lamps everywhere, soft sofa to sit on and read the paper, while one waits. there's an overhead display of the current searches on the website.
I met with the woman, who was a contractor, who had e-mailed me. we spoke briefly about contrator positions at google. there's a test every 6 months for who will be let on as a permanent employee and who won't.
the interview is in 3 one hour blocks, all water/soda/snacks/whatever, are on the house if offered. I opted for water. the first people I met with were two of the team members i'd be working with. we went over technical questions they ahd for me, is was a good time, all smiles and "that's good" comments. the position was more of a hardware ops type so it wasn't particularly unix admin type stuff, but we touched on that since it was more above and beyond the requirements, but below junior admin status for google. I figured I'd be ok for a hardware ops.
hour one. very positive response ended on a good note. Grade A (my metric)
the second two were the technical lead adn the supervisor of the team. very smart people, really put me in my place but in a friendly way with the admin stuff, and asked for an example of some shell code, I wrote some on the board stressing it may not be syntactically correct but it's as far as I know accurate. went well but I flopped on easy stuff like fping and reasoning for zone record trimming. another and I think a larger one was "waht do I look for in a leader" I answered in a bitter way as i'd been let down by most of my managers/directors/leaders at all palces i've worked for previously. (not too too important, but I view it as a demerit) still a positive experience. end of hour 2. Grade B
bathroom break. they were really stressing that I be comfortable throughout the process. always stating clearly if I need anything, feel free. the bathroom is very clean and they allow the luxury of paper towels in the mens room. i was pleased.
hour three were two people from another hardware group, I think NOC as they worked a 24x7 type position. one was a manager and another a technical person. at this point i think they were running out of questions. we went over some technical stuff. the difference between runlevel 0 and 6, =) other stuff of nebulous concern to hardware, I hate to toot my own horn but i'm really sharp on pc hardware and linux, so I really answered all the questions completely. after about 30 minutse we were just shootign the shix and I could see they were eager to cut it short, not due to myself but becasue they were out of things to ask. end of hour 3. Grade A
i was escorted out and i haven't heard a word since.
so evern getting the interview might be iffy. I think had I been better with the shell scripting, and perhaps less embittered by my previous employment experience i'd have been accepted.
but honestly, it's a honor just to get nominated.
I'd love to hear others' experiences in their attempt to get hired.
I have not applied at Google, but here are my last two getting-hired experiences:
Current job - 9 interviews
Previous job - 12 interviews
How is that number of interviews considered unique enough to bring up in the headline? I thought this was common practice for IT shops.
The testing is a bit unusual, but if you guys wanted to even work at Wal-mart or Home Depot in the 80's you had to take a couple of tests. I even had to take a couple of lie detector and voice stress tests for minimum wage crap when a teenager.
Microsoft has a difficult interview process. I've had a job there a couple of times.
They usually do an interview loop with between three and five people. I think that is a lot.
Personally, I think interviewing more than that (ie. 16 times) is just plain stupid. Google should refine their process.
On another note, eventually they will find out that all of these aptitude tests are really quite pointless.
An interview should look for traits in people such as a work ethic. Smart people are smart, but hard working people get the job done. I'm sure other people besides myself, have noticed that being smart does not equate to being successful.
I see it more as a fraternity hazing ritual than a real attempt to gauge aptitude or ability. Young companies are often like this for some reason.
Just think - in any field you can think of - tennis, school, etc. - some people are 'A' players and consistantly outperform others - other people are 'B' and 'C' players, that really don't stack up to the 'A' players.
A company filled with 'A' players will win every time.
Google's just in a very enviable position that so many top people want to work directly for them -- as opposed to starting their own thing in the hopes of getting bought by Google later.
I tried twice to get to google, passed the phone screens twice, which I guess I should consider myself happy about, but 'failed' the in person interviews both times (that was before IPO, I would assume it is much easier to get it nowadays).
My impression was that they value youth and brightness (as in, just out of school, being able to quickly recall or come up with stuff irrelevant to actual work) over actual experience... (but yes, this is obviously sour grapes !)
In my experience, such people are usually poor programmers. When faced with a problem, they may hack together a solution quickly, but the code they write is often poor from a readability, structural, and maintainability perspective because none of those things are "interesting" in their own right.
Google is discarding many people who are very talented programmers, but who just aren't good at solving puzzles in real-time during an interview. Additionally, the added pressure of you getting hired riding on not only your answer but how quickly you can give it is enough to make a lot of people freeze up.
Personally, when faced with a really hard problem, I often think of a solution when I'm not consiously thinking about the problem. Showering and that period between the time I get into bed and the time I actually fall asleep are two examples of such times. (I keep a notpad and pen next to my bed to write down stuff I think of just before falling asleep and often discover that the next morning when I try it it's the solution I was looking for.)
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
I got a call from Google earlier this fall, saying they'd farmed my resume off the web and wanted to interview me for some kind of Unix-related position. I spoke on the phone a couple times with an HR person who asked me some general questions and setup a phone interview with a current Google employee.
The phone interview with the employee, who was working at a position very similar to the one I was interviewing for, was rigorous. He asked questions that required me to speak code to him, on the fly. I ended up asking if I could take my time and write the code out before I read it to him, because I didn't want to screw up. I screwed up anyway. I was really nervous and even though the questions weren't very complex, they were things that I wasn't prepared to have to answer on the spot.
I finally heard back from them almost a month later, with the (no surprise) rejection.
Intercarve Networks, LLC
-
Like GMail and POP3. You see, 1GB webmail with text ads based on contents of email, all fine and clear. But a non-crippling POP3 that lets you avoid the ads?
I don't think there is one, I believe they put in the POP3 access for all the geeks who had requested it, most of the general population won't know what POP3 is, or care, they'll continue to use the web-based interface.Where's the catch?
I also suspect they're betting on people buying into the concept of having E-mail/storage/etc. available anywhere they can get a network connection. I know I'm still using Gmail's web interface and have no plans to change. I actually like the interface (first time I've ever said that about a web-based E-mail client) and having things centralized has proven to be quite useful for me. I'm frankly hoping they're planning to offer more things like it, maybe a calendar program. (Actually I could probably find a free one of those if I'd every remember to take the time to look.)
I can't speak to the questions about Google's hiring process, but reading about the Googleplex and the company ski trip made me think of the old dot-com days. Many companies reached Google's level of financial success (though arguably not its name recognition), and then bit the dust.
We all like to think that Google is different, somehow, but is it really? Or has Google become so ingrained in the way we use the internet that it cannot be destroyed, even if the company itself ceases to exist?
Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
- what
did I like about my last job?" When my answers were repetitive, I asked the interviewer if they wanted me to reiterate my answers. how strange.Microsoft may be big, but you never hear anyone say "Why don't you MS for that?" Empires fall, yet verbs are eternal.
"A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes." -Mahatma Gandhi
the 2 main job requirements in IT: the ability to RTFM/Google. ofc i suppose the latter isn't very relevant in the context of this article ;-)
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Although Google is a bit more on the extreme side hiring process wise, this is definitely very typical for the market today. Anyone planning on getting a job in the tech industry, here are the key things your employer is looking for:
1) Ability to work well with others and in a team environment. This is pretty much critical in tech industry today.
2) Ability to learn quickly and on your own. No one realistically expects you to know *everything*, there is just too much for most people to absorb. What they do expect you to do though, is to be able to teach yourself the things you need to know and learn quickly.
3) Background experience. What companies analyze out of your background really varies from company to company. But, in the end all they are looking for is data that backs up point number 1 and 2. They want evidence that you are balanced, that you can learn well, that you can work well with others. Be it college background, work experience, tech demos you build yourself, etc, all that stuff really is just hard data to confirm your background.
As for the aptitude tests, those are just a way for companies to narrow down the potential applicants. With so many people looking for a job, it helps to shrink the applicant pool any way you can. Trust me, your potential future employer knows you are going to BS on the aptitude test. In fact, they are pretty much expecting it. They just want to ween out the people who aren't serious enough about getting the job and who aren't smart enough or serious enough to BS the test based on what they feel the employeer is looking for.
Honestly, aptitude tests are just a quick and easy filter to get the dumbest of dumb out of the way. What really and truly matters when you apply for a job is the interview(s). That is where your potential bosses can really judge you.
80% of what matters in the hiring proces is all about the interviews. 10% is background, and the last 10% is your BS filter(aptitude tests, on the spot programming challenges, etc).
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
I think the above post being modded a troll is actually quite unfair. Many Americans I know have expressed this opinion (here at slashdot and other places) and I don't believe all of them were trolls. Therefore I'll respond to it (and most likely be modded a troll as my opinions will be unpopular).
:)
By your logic google is evil for having a DMCA policy. Now you might say "wait a minute, they have to do that, it's the law." Well I don't know if linking to infringing material is illegal, which means they're complying with censorship without being forced too. But assuming it is illegal to link to infringing material, they have to follow the law to comply with the US government. Well they have to censor material to comply with the Chinese government. If they don't do so in each case they get in a lot of trouble and risk having their business shut-down in a certain location/completely.
For a lot of people it's okay for google to comply with the US government but not the Chinese one. But if google should try to persuade people to criticise and change certain policies of the Chinese government, they should do the same with the US government (I don't think I'm alone in saying both policies are bad).
Having said that, I don't beleive in FOREIGN companies trying to persuade a country's laws. However I can see why a lot of Americans don't share this opinion, for instance some think it's the duty of their government to try to persuade other peoples to come within America's vision (democracy and capitalism).
Not all American's believe this, but many do. It only makes sense that they think it's okay for companies to try to influence foreign laws as well.
This isn't a troll, but a post commenting on this issue
I flew out to Google in May for an interview. I had first interviewed on campus (I actually thought I bombed that interview). They flew me out to California for an interview (the only person from my school that interviewed for that position). I was interviewing for an Associate Product Marketing Manager position. My day consisted of about six half-hour interviews, all in the same small conference room, with a break for lunch. The process was very different in comparison to Microsoft (I had just flown out to Microsoft two weeks earlier). While Microsoft moves you from building to building, room to room, so you get sufficiently lost and disoriented (while the different interviewers talk about you behind your back) at Google the interviewers come to you and they don't know anything about you until you meet them (so they claim). Google's questions seemed significantly easier than Microsoft's, but I was interviewing for a Program Manager position at Microsoft, so the focus of the questions was pretty different. Microsoft gives you brain teasers, tells you to write code on the board (even though it was a non-coding position), and even gave me an ethics question. Google gave me a lot of estimation questions (number of pizzas sold at college in a year), which I don't really understand since I don't see how being a good estimator makes you good at anything else. Regardless, I was really proud of all of my estimations (I prepared myself with a bunch of dumb facts, like the number of Wal-Mart stores in the US, to use as references, which worked well. At the end of my day of interviews (which I thought went really well) I was talking with an HR guy (not my HR guy, strangely) and he asked me what time I was coming back the next day. I told him that I wasn't coming back since my flight home was the next morning (this was set up by the Google travel people, I had no choice in this matter). He told me that I needed to meet with two more people and he went back upstairs to see if they were free to meet with me that afternoon. It took him a long time to come back and tell me that they were too busy, so I was sent home, pretty much knowing that I wouldn't be getting a job since I couldn't complete the interview process. I was an east-coaster, and unlike all the Stanford kids that they seemed to move in by the busload for interviews, I had to go home. It took them a long time to get back to me about their decision. The HR guy kept telling me that the meeting to discuss my interviews kept getting postponed. Then one day he told me that I needed to set aside two hours for a timed essay. I took the essay, which was the "final step" in the interview process, according to the Word doc they sent me (I was expecting some high-tech web form that prevents me from missing the deadline, but instead I just got the email at the time specified and had to email it back within two hours). I got an email about a week later telling me I didn't get the job. My essay kicked ass. I should post it online. Oh well. I've got a lot of other observations about the differences between the Google and Microsoft interview processes if anyone cares.
My X tried to get job there, twice. She has a Phd (physics), 2 masters degrees and teaches C/C++/Python and OOP(college level and business level). Also, has experience writing large software projects on Linux. She has developed software for IBM that was marketed and made a bundle. She has a special interest in algorithms and their application to tough software problems. She couldnt get an interview. I was astonished - she is probably the best programmer/designer Ive ever met. Google, you goofed not hiring her.
...there are a lot of people who do *not* test well, yet blossom under the right conditions.
:-(
With rigorous testing, you'll get a lot of smart people...smart at passing tests anyways.
Work ethic and love for ones occupation should far exceed aptitude in any hiring criteria.
So if you have any handicap(s), you can forget ever working at Google?
Seems like Google has already become severed from reality using that filter.
Too bad.
I did have high hopes.
Google is censored in North America (or at least the US portion), see their dmca policy. See my post below and whether or not I believe it's evil (I'm against their DMCA policy more then their Chinese policy because the DMCA affects me. If I were Chinese I may have a different opinion).
By the way, those fanatics you talked about is a foreign government. With that sort of respect it's no wonder America isn't the most popular country right now. No, not a flame. An observation.
Google uses aptitude tests, which it has even placed in technical magazines, hoping some really big brains would tackle the hardest problems
Almost all hightech companies look for big brains. Typical questions would look like this:
five pirates have 100 gold coins. they have to divide up the loot. in order of seniority (suppose pirate 5 is most senior, pirate 1 is least senior), the most senior pirate proposes a distribution of the loot. they vote and if at least 50% accept the proposal, the loot is divided as proposed. otherwise the most senior pirate is executed, and they start over again with the next senior pirate. what solution does the most senior pirate propose? assume they are very intelligent and extremely greedy (and that they would prefer not to die).
The answer is in the no. 63 of techInterview. Don't feel depress when you couldn't come up with the right answer, and don't bother memorizing all those answers before going to interview. They probably wouldn't reuse any of them anyway. If you don't have extremely high IQ, you probably want to learn techniques to solve those problems.
As a matter of fact, questions as such are mostly problems in Game Theory(Yes, Game Theory as in the movie A Beautiful Mind). Pirates problem above is a typical game that can be solved by backward induction on an extended subgame. I've actually seen this question in a final examination of Game Theory in my prograduate Economics studies.
Again, that's a very shortsighted view to take, a very naive view.
Believing that it would be better for google not to comply with the governments wishes and censor some content, when the alternative is to be blocked entierly is rather foolish. That would mean that a very useful resource, which many many people use on a daily basis would be taken away. So tell me, which is the greater evil; allowing people to access a tool which gives them access to a great deal of information with censorship (which with the state of the internet means that its highly likely that a number of things are still available that the governement would desire censored), or not complying, and depriving them from the use of a tool which could facilitate the finding of that information?
One can easily view google's association with a governement that is often percieved as evil as google being evil as well. But are they not infact offering a service to the people of the area? Your suggestion that they should not censor and be blocked makes it seem like you believe google should be fighting the battles of the chinese citizens. Tell me, what have you done to aid people living in china with regards to their government? I expect google has done much much more for them than you have.
Seriously, basing your business plan around hiring a bunch of geniuses is not automatically a smart idea. Geniuses can be lazy, they can be terribly hard to manage because think they know better than their managers, and the supply of grade-A ones is rather limited and competition for them will remain pretty hot. It may well be smarter if your business is set up in such a way that you didn't require all your employees to be geniuses, but through good training and good procedures equipped them to deliver the services that you wish to offer.
Sure, maybe your business is going to be less flexible and adaptable this way. Maybe you're going to need more staff, and more intensive oversight, than the "hire geniuses" route. But the supply and cost of moderately competent, reliable staff is much, much more favourable than competing for geniuses.
In 20 years time, when Google is a mature company trying to protect its patch, let's see whether people are chewing off their right arm to work there, and how the company copes then.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
I interviewed at Google about a year ago and it was horrible in so many ways I don't know where to begin.
:-)
They asked questions requiring nothing more than memorization of man(1) pages.
They asked for my opinion and told me it was wrong.
They asked me if I knew insert techology here and when I said "no" they spent the rest of their timeslot asking questions about it.
They asked no questions which accertained logical reasoning, problem solving skills, creativity or anything else they seem to be so interested in.
The list goes on and on. By the time I was done I didn't want the job. They called me months later to ask if I'd be interested in working for them and once again I said "no."
Life Engine.
oh wait...
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
You could do 14 interviews in 3 afternoon rounds.
So that's one flat tire, one sick aunt, and a dentist appointment.
If you're looking for a technical look at Google's inner workings, I highly suggest you view this talk given by one of Google's Distinguished Engineers at the University of Washington. He talks about how Google stores all of its data (the Google File System), and how massive amounts of data are processed (MapReduce), among other things.
It was like
Me: "What Up?"
Them: "What Up?"
then I pulled down my pants and they were like:
"You're Hired!!"
then I'm like "Respect."
Speaking of The Apprentice, that show cracks me up. Does the Trumpster really think that ONLY Ivy-leaguers could come up with the crap that those contestants did? Give me a break. And what about the episode right before the finale, where those two women were hissing away at each other...PLEASE...it sounded more like a high-school tiff (they even TALKED like high-school girls). I'd NEVER expect something like this from a professional. This was supposed to be the creme de la creme, but I guess the joke was on them.
Collage isnt everything. I learnt to make money without a batchelors', and I do'nt need a job at google.
I see you have a CS degree.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
In July of 2002, when Google Answers was hardly-known (is it very well known even today?), I did some research work--without pay--for Google.com. I love research, so I didn't mind; I was thrilled to do it.
...
One day, I got a letter/email from Google.
In it:
"We have noticed you have been quite active on the site and that your
comments have been well-written and comprehensive
Based on your postings we think you would be
an excellent addition to the researcher community."
They were offering me a job as a paid researcher. I was quite shocked because I had read that lots of people applied and were never given jobs, and I never even applied.
Apparently I was answering questions very quickly and thoroughly; one of their paid researchers noticed and recommended me.
It wasn't a very well-paying job and it was not a "high ranking one" per say, but it does qualify as a job that did not require an aptitude test.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms."
Before they were public. 3 interviews then nothing. Got another job. They call. 4 more interviews. Nothing since. I have a friend that works there. He says they are like that. He thinks I will get another call in another 2 months for 4 more interviews.
So I was just hired by Google right out of college, I'm graduating from Carnegie Mellon Univ in May. Google came to our school to run interviews around October. Here's a summary of the process:
Google set up shop at one of our job fairs with about 120 other companies. Anyone could walk up to the booth and give them their resume and talk to the people there. If they liked you, they e-mailed you later for an interview
There are then 2 on campus interviews. The first on one day, and if the interviewer likes you, then you get called back to the next day. If that interviewer likes you, you get flown out to their head quarters by San Fransisco. For my trip, there were 8 kids from CMU, and about 25 total from 7 other schools.
Out in their headquarters, you have 3 interviews with different sets of people. One of my interviews had 2 people each asking questions. They also feed you though and give tours of the campus. They definitly treated the applicants very well out there, great hotel, very nice all around.
Finally a week later people found out if they had offers or not. I heard rumors that in interviews with Google, each interviewer has 'veto' power, so if just one person didn't like you, no luck.
As for interview topics, there was a large range. Most were data structure concepts and problem solving. One interview was very unique though, the guy had a sheet of general software eng questions ranging over topics such as application design and testing, server-client software design, internet concepts. He would ask you just to describe a general topic, and see how much you could explain about it. For instance, one question was like "If you wanted to improve one of your programs, what would you do?" So you had to talk about testing, bottle-necks, better hardware, etc, just about everything.
As for coding questions, some people have complained in this thread that they don't display if you are a good coder, and I quite disagree. The purpose of those questions are to find out how you think, not how you code. They look for if you can logically lay out a problem in entirety and solve it one step at a time. Yes it's under a stress you would normally not have, but I think the stress helps sometimes. The part that all my interviewers spent the most time with was if I could improve my current solution. To see if you could do it with less memory, less cpu. The hardest part is just not knowing if there's something obvious that you should see. But a hint, start with the worst solution, then 'think up' a better solution while you're writting out the first. Do not try writting out the optimal solution from scratch from your head. They want to first see that you can solve it, but then to make sure that you don't settle for that solution and instead cringe at every line to make sure it's perfect.
Other tips I would suggest, spice up your resume with team projects. Also, the breadth of experience you have, not depth. As for positions at Google, I was hired as a Software Eng, which means I can work on just about any project, so they wanted people with skills in many areas. Lastly, don't be afraid of saying 'I don't know' to a question. I did this a few times for 'quiz' questions where I knew I could just go look up the answer (for instance, one question was 'list and define all the different type casts in c++'). But just don't wait time trying to make up something or giving a wrong answer.
After that babble, I also wanted to mention that every interviewer seemed to love their job there, like some people in the thread have said.
I hope this might give some insight into the process, although it's specific for college grads. But the general idea I got was that Google was looking for genearally bright people with decent experience and good team skills.
Well, data mining is still profitable, creating and selling demographics and psychographics is still profitable, and that's what you give them license to do.
... Google's computers process the information in your email for various purposes, including formatting and displaying the information to you, delivering targeted related information (such as advertisements and related links)...and other purposes relating to offering you Gmail.
...Google will never sell, rent or share your personal information, including your Gmail address or email content, with any third parties for marketing purposes without your express permission.
Building psychographics, demographics, geographics, profiles, etc. from keywords (as well as cataloguing keywords) is not selling/renting/sharing personal information and is not selling/renting/sharing email content, and can therefore be sold to third parties. I can't see anything in Google's privacy page that prevents them from mining and selling this information.
Websites I've found (with a quick (google) search just now) charge $500-1000/month+ for access to plain old demographics. Just think how much money would be made from samples of millions of people talking about products, when they talk about products, how they talk about products etc etc. Why do you think Google search needs to assign an ID to you and remember what search terms you used anyway?
We use cookies to improve the quality of our service and to better understand how people interact with us. Google does this by storing user preferences in cookies and by tracking user trends and patterns of how people search.
http://www.google.com/privacy.html
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/help/privacy.html
http://www.demographicsnow.com/
So I'm a programmer at Amazon.com - I do a good bit of recruiting/interviewing.
Google/Amazon/Microsoft all do it pretty much the same way, with a few variations. Everybody's looking for the same super-awesome programmers, and so you have basically a gauntlet of programmer-led technical interviews. Google's aptitude tests, advertisements are just it's way of leting the super-awesome programmers know that Google Wants You!
The main difference between places is how exactly they define "super-awesome". Here's my take on the companies I know about:
1. Google will hire really hardcore theroetical people into pretty applied positions. Raw intelligence seems to be job #1 at google, so they hire people without a solid pratical track record.
2. Amazon will hire hardcore hackers, even if they don't have perfect academic credentials. Stuff like sucess in Open Source project is way up there at Amazon.
3. Microsoft will hire people who have decent (but not awesome) coding skills and social skills and give them a Project Manager job. Because they have so many Project Managers, I think that also frees them to hire programmers with even fewer social skills.[pmjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjn
90% of programmers believe that they are in the 10% of programmers.
By your logic google is evil for having a DMCA policy. Now you might say "wait a minute, they have to do that, it's the law." Well I don't know if linking to infringing material is illegal, which means they're complying with censorship without being forced too.
I believe that there is case law (the 2600 DeCSS case) that says it is illegal to link to illegal information. If google were really interested in "doing good" (which is different from doing no evil) then they would do two things in DMCA censorship cases:
1) PROMINENTLY indicate that the search returned information that is being censored by the DMCA. When the crutch of scientology sued them to stop linking to bootlegs of their "religious" texts, they put a little dinky notice at the very bottom of the search results indicating something was amiss. In my opinion, Google should put a notice like that as the very first hit and it should be in red. It would link to the DMCA take-down notice or whatever other legal document was used to force them to not link.
2) They would wait for a really good test case and push to have it taken to the Supreme Court. They obviously have got the bucks for the lawyers and after all these years, I expect they have had at least one good test case slip through their fingers.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Good is an adjective, well is an adverb.
You are GOOD at faking who you are.
You fake who you are WELL.
..I've decided not to get a degree in computer science.
Hi, everyone. I've been a lurker on these boards for a long time now, but just wanted to state this. I've wanted to be a programmer all my life, and have worked on projects on the side ever since I bought my first computer about 10 years ago. I consider myself talented.
Anyways, this is probably the #1 reason I have decided to get a degree in something else (nursing maybe). This trend in interviewing is just plain rediculous and leaves one not caring about the job. There is only so much BS you can get spoon fed before revulsion kicks in...
One recent hire had 14 interviews before getting the job - and that was in the public relations department.'
This one is so obvious...
1) Engineering company - lotsa dorky engineers who can never get close to a babe in real life
2) PR department - #1 requirement is to be good looking, usually female (able to work as a "booth babe" if the regular unemployeed actress/model/singer/songwriter chicks are no shows).
Those 14 "interviews" was just google management sharing the wealth with the engineers, keeping up morale and all. Maybe even hooking up a couple with some nice poon since everybody knows google stock options are making the long-time employees rich.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Trump doesn't give a damn about the person he actually hires, the whole damn show is a cash cow for him anyway and he could care less about the actual person he is "hiring". I doubt they actually do anything important...
http://chrono.posterous.com/
Oftentimes, that "rigor" is really not so rigorous as much as a process for your and the company's good. A lot of large companies/agencies do this so that they can find the right fit for you in their company. Many times, the company already plans on hiring you and has already decided you will make a "good employee," but the seemingly ridiculous number of interviews is for placement purposes.
If you come in and wish to interview only for the advertised position, you might be missing out on an opportunity in an area you really want to work in or would excel at (being a new, unpublicized area, you might be brilliant at it and love it, but not be aware it even exists), and so oftentimes the company puts you through interviews (in this case, ump-teen interviews), so that people in each of those areas have an opportunity to speak-up on your behalf and say, "you know, I could really use him/her here, but the position we have open hasn't been advertised." Putting you in an area that you are likely to love is worth the time "wasted" because you are more likely to be productive.
Perhaps it isn't this way at all companies, but interviewing many-times (seemingly "rigorous") is simply a placement issue, not a torture or publicity one.
Also, the tests oftentimes aren't about the right answer, but your reaction to being placed outside your comfort zone for a moment, and how well you respond. Perhaps Google is doing it for torture purposes (I am not so sure of that, though), but the "extreme interview processes" often have other purposes than the initially-perceived ones. I am speaking about other companies here, not necessarily exclusively about Google.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms."
. . .
seriously, there are a whole bunch of people posting "i did 100 interviews and got nothing" VS "i got headhunted" ('scuse the exaggeration, but it was getting boring)
this is not very useful information without knowing the positions applied for and applicant's experience and qualifications.
a friend "interviewed" for a a news agency recently - 1st interview came across like a Herbalife recruitment circus. Second is scheduled but not happened already.
i have a good friend in the UK who's an employment attorney. with the sheer overload of tribunal cases for unfair dismissal claims, discrimination claims and the like, it's no wonder the interview process for raw fresh young hires is tortuous.
but that doesn't mean the process is perforce of any use to anyone - i have the strong impression much of the belaboured trials are invented to protect management liability. and sometimes, with some companies, long intetrview processes are a sign of unfocussed and ill-prepared management.
also, with new and fast growing companies with lots of bright staff, all fairly equallty qualified, i've noticed a tendency towards spreading responsibility of all kinds. that's just IME, but when you hire tons of execs in a go, internal hierarchies are not settled, even if roles are allocated, and few step up to act outside the behavioral mold - often because there isn't such a mold yet.
== Idle Random Thoughts. Usual Disclaimers Apply ==
... or failing that, do anyone know someone apart from Google who indexses usenet?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Let me say one thing. I got my BSc from a decent UK university (top 33-25% for Computer Science); it's a First Class Honours, the best ranking the University gave out (typically, UK degrees are graded as "First Class", "Upper Second Class", "Lower Second Class", "Third Class", and some stuff below that which isn't that great; I think some unis give "starred" firsts, mine didn't).
To be honest, I was expecting to get an upper second and was extremely damn surprised to get the first (because they don't give out details on marks, I've still no idea how the fuck they got a first from them).
Here's the crunch. I'm *not* a 'First Class' student; I'm a decent "Upper Second" at best, but I didn't cheat (or, if you think I did, then I'd point out that 90% of the class probably cheated more than me, so go figure).
How did I get a First? I don't know, but I strongly suspect that putting the extra effort into a written essay on data ethics (that ended up counting towards a small but notable percentage of the year) made the difference. I know that many people didn't put that much effort into it, but spent ages on things that didn't matter half as much.
Point is, I'm fairly mediocre when it comes to computer skills, I spent more time studying crap than I did doing actual computer stuff and preparing for a job; yeah, my essay writing is okay, but the whole experience has left me very sceptical about what a degree means.
I didn't "abuse" the system, but I certainly played along with it for all that it was worth, because I wanted a decent chance of getting a First Class. I knew that wasn't everything, but I suspected it would mean more than it did.
I could bore you with this all day, but I can't be arsed typing that much; point is that a degree teaches you stuff, but it's not the same as the real world, it's overrated, and in spite of their efforts, it doesn't really teach you the practical stuff you need for a job as much as some people would like you to believe.
I thought it was ironic that one of my lecturers asked me if I was going to be doing a PhD. The BSc drained me of the enthusiasm I would have needed to even *consider* doing a PhD. There's no way in hell I want to see the inside of a university for a long time to come.
Gee, that's a tuffy. Maybe I'd respond with something like "Let me get right back to you on this. I want to check the documentation at the office to make sure I'm correct."
You obviously can't think outside the box, hence you are destined to remain inside the cubicle.
First, the others:
:) ).
...
... I probably got in due to the fact I was an internal reference. I had a phone interview that was actually pretty cool -- my interviewer felt engaged, asked intelligent questions, and seemed really interested in me. It was a back-and-forth process, and I really liked it. I also did well enough, apparently, to qualify for a face-to-face interview.
... a little disappointing (can you tell I didn't get the job? :) ). It felt very one-sided. Forgive the fuzzy wording here -- I tend to be one of the more fuzzy, Myers-Briggs EIFPish, geeks out there.
Back in August, on a Tuesday (you'll see the days matter in a second) I did a phone interview with a hiring manager; I did well enough that toward the end of the interview she asked me when I could come in; I said Thursday would be earliest (I was unemployed). After shouting over to some people, Thursday turned out to be OK. Lets call this Day 0
Day 0+2: I came in on Thursday and was interviewed for about three hours. Four teams, two singletons and two pairs. Oh, and I hate pair interviews. I remember distinctly that I managed to establish an amazing rapport with the hiring manager fairly early on and had an interview that left me feeling like a million bucks (this is probably the only interview where I've ever said, in response to a salary question, "you can't pay me what I'm worth" and meant it
Day 0+3: On Friday, I was contacted by another company and told they wanted to bring me in. We arranged the interview to occur Tuesday (so a week after the first phone interview).
Day 0+4: Company A calls me and wants to hire me. I tell them I've got to check out Company B and we negotiate to have me give them an answer by Thursday (0+9, or 5 days hence). Due to the sensitivity of the project, I agree to come in for a meeting at work on Wednesday (0+8) so I can be up to speed if I take the job (this also let me see what kind of work environment they've got).
Day 0+7: I interview at company B. Process is also about three hours. They're aware of my situation, and so the last person to talk to me is the hiring manager, with an offer in hand. I tell him I'll let them know by Thursday.
Day 0+8: I come in for a meeting at company A and fall in love with the company culture -- remember, this isn't "let's tell the interviewee what the culture's like," but rather a real business meeting I'm attending, so it allows me the sort of inside intelligence that's often lacking in our decisions. It also allows me to see that, e.g., everyone dislikes the company-provided laptops, which allows me to
Day 0+9: I call company B and politely decline, I call company A to enthusiastically accept and negotiate a better laptop (the 'negotiation' process wasn't exactly lengthy -- "I'd like a laptop, but your standards suck. What can we do about this?" "Yeah, we're not happy with the standard. Can you work with the IT Director to come up with something better?").
As for the Google process
The face-to-face happened about 15 days later. It was about 3-3.5 hours (fairly standardized for Google, apparently). I was lucky enough (ref internal referral) to eat at the Google cafeteria ahead of time, which definitely rocked.
_That_ interview process was
I think it's natural, really -- Google goes through so many of these interviews that the first step is by necessity an emotionally disengaged "show us you're worthy of breathing Google Air[tm]" process. One of the things missing from the interview, for example, was any sort of discussion of the Google side of things, or what the job or work relationships or technology are like.
I left the interview drained. I'm actually pretty pleased with my performance -- I'd probably want to change two or three things, but overall I'd say I probably performed at about 85% or better of my optimal capacity.
About ten days later I got a phone call fr
The point of the parent poster, and though I haven't read it, I assume the book - is that once you have a few good years under your belt, any decent programmer will tell you that all languages are essentially the same. Sure, you have some that are OO, some are more procedural, some have some weird syntax to get used to - but, for the most part, they are all the same basic constructs and concepts, and anyone with a moderate level of skill can pick up a new language fairly rapidly. Sure, they will be no expert at first, but given 6 months to a year and they would be proficient enough that you just may have a hard time picking them out of a lineup with people who had 10 times the experience.
Programming is about algorithms and design. The language you use to implement those ideas is nothing more than a tool. If I was interviewing anyone this is where I would be focusing my evaluation.
The days of needing to know the language's API inside and out are over - Google took care of that. I don't want to know if you know what the method of creating a vector in Java is - any monkey can find that out with Google in less time than it took you to read this sentence. I want to know if you know what the *difference is* between a vector and a list, and if you instantly know when to use which. This is not something you find in 2 seconds on Google, and this is what you should look for in a good coder - the ability to quickly and easily identify the best algorithm for the situation.
I just lost all interest in working for google - 14 interviews ? thats bollocks, sounds like an asshole micro management system.
I'll tell you what Google is doing, they're getting ready to learn a HARD lesson in economics.
It's not NEARLY as easy to let people go as it is to hire them, and the only product the general public is even remotely interested in is the search engine. Desktop Search? WTF? Do they realize that most professionals in the office environment I've serviced can easily fit all their documents (sans-pictures) on a few floppy disks? Where's the market for this Desktop Search when most people either a) produce little to no digital output, or b) already know how to use folders and organize their work?
The Google folks should be focusing on small, judicious changes to their flagship product (www.google.com), and just rake in the billions like they were before the IPO.
Maark my words: The IPO will be remembered as the day Google lost focus and started the change to bleeding money.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
What time will you come back the next day?
question is most likely part of the HR interview process.
It checks to see if you are willing to change plans in order to stay the extra day.
Sure Google did all the flight arrangments for you,
but you could skip that flight or call the airline and reschedule it yourself.
Consider it a real world, real time thinking on your feet test.
It's part of the weeding out process.
After all, if they give you the job, your going to have to come back the next day, and the next day,
and do some more flying and moving, just to work with them.
The come back the next day question also could be a loyalty check - it tests your motivation.
Anyone hungry enough and serious enough to go above and beyond the scheduled visit,
at their own expense - really wants to stay and work there.
The situation gives you the opportunity to show that you are flexible and in control of your life & situation.
If you Really want the job at a company,
Next time simply say 'What time is good for you?'
and work out the flight/hotel details yourself,
without distracting the interviewer away from their positive impression of you.
It is better to show your cool, calm, and collected skills to the interviewer.
You can impress them with your sincerity and with the strength of your motivation.
The basic story is of a hedge fund in the mid to late 1990's, and its dramatic rise and spectacular failure. The fund hired only the best of the best, and amongst its cadre of partners were 2 Nobel prize winners for economics. These people were bright. Their prime failing came down to two points.
Whilst on the topic of finance, long interviews here are no exception. I recently applied for an internship at a certain bank. The application process was completed on-line. After about 10 pages of copying from my resume and short essays, I clicked submit -- only to find out that I was now ready to complete the on-line math and communication skills tests. These took about an hour each, and were graded instantly. I made it past the first stage. If I do progress further, I am expecting a few days of interviews, as this is the norm even for internship positions.
:wq ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I remember a passage in Aldus Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD where a character asks why the government didn't just breed all Alphas. In this ficticious universe, they tried an experiment where they put all the biggest brains on the island of Crete and observed them. They were all so smart, every single one of them wanted to be an engineer or a philosopher or a politician or a CEO (you get the idea). Not a single one of them signed up for garbage duty, raising children, maintaining the water supply, growing and harvesting the food...
Is Google going to run into the same problem? Don't they need some "drones" who are just solid workers instead of super-geniuses? Who will get the work done while all the geniuses battle over the cool new projects (and skunks works)?
I sense Google going in the direction of the early 90s Apple (not a good thing).
cr
I'm pirate 2, about to get zero in this scheme. Here's what I'd do. .
I'd take pirates 1, 3 and 4 aside and tell them; "Arrr, matey's! Here's what we'll do. We're all about to get screwed into nothing while P5 takes all the loot. So-called 'Logic' dictates that there's no other way out! So follow my plan, and the four of us will all be better off!
"We vote down P5 and feed him to the sharks, but first we promise that immediately after killing the old bastard, we stop this voting nonsense and cut the loot four ways! That way we all profit and we get rid of that old blackguard! Are ye in or are ye out? If yer in you get 25 gold, if yer out, you get only one gold or nothing. What say ye?"
This is why logic problems are retarded. They only work in closed systems which never adapt, and this is why they don't work in the real world.
Interestingly, this is also why the Powers That Be want to make the world more and more controlled so as to make it so that their dipshit game theories CAN work. Luckily, this is quite impossible. Un-luckily, everybody gets hurt as they try to do it anyway.
-FL
You would become a nuisance.
Call once a week until you get a definitive answer, in the meantime you are looking for other options. Eventually you'll get a job, just avoid annoying people.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Two years ago when I was desperate for a job, I sent resumes to almost everywhere imaginable. In desperation I even checked the Google jobs site, despite the fact that I live nowhere near them. Lo and behold, they had a sys admin position available here on the east coast. Holy crap! Of course, I immediately sent them a resume. I had no hope that they would contact me, since (as you already know if you read the post) they receive over 1,000 resumes a day.
:(
;) Still, just this small contact with Google, where even the HR suits are geeks, was inspiring.
Maybe a week later, I get an e-mail from Google! O, frabjous day. They want to do a quick interview over the phone. I immediately agree, and the interviewer calls me at the appointed time. He asks me some standard HR-ish questions about who I am and where I want to be, and then the real interview starts.
"Now for this part, you can't use a computer or a calculator." Uh oh. He starts asking me networking questions. Geeky ones. Hard ones. He had me list off the port numbers for various services, calculate netmasks in my head and troubleshoot hypothetical problems. I trip up only a little bit on the mathy parts, and he informs me right on the phone that I seem good enough, and that I could be scheduled for a real live interview.
Then comes the rub: He's explaining about the job (basically live in their east coast datacenter and maintain their server farm) and in the process tells me how much they're paying. Ouch... True, it's sort of a low-level job, but with my mortgage and family, there's no way I could live on it.
He tells me that in a few years, I could move up in the company, were I willing to pack up and ship off to California. Could this really be a backdoor into a coveted position in the Engineering department for those of us without Ph.Ds? I can tell you that if I were single and commitment-free, I'd have taken that job in a second. IMO, roughing it for a few years would be worth it to work for Google.
But it was not to be. I have an excellent (and far higher-paying) job now, and I didn't even have to move to California for it.
"Why would God give us a waist if we wasn't supposed to rest our pants on it?" - Rev. Roy McDaniels
In order to get a decent job these days, you have to be extra-smart, extra-informed, always on the edge of your field both theoritically and practically. ...but is life about that? why should it all be about competition? is it good progress if our society clusters all good minds together for a single purpose? is profit the only reason we live? is the everything-for-profit mentality good for the environment? will this competition-crazy society of today be able to evolve, or will it be self-destroyed?
Should we really be anxious because we went for interview at Google and someone asked us to solve a puzzle that we couldn't? does that make us less worthy of living a good life than those that have answered that question? should we be judged for the environment that we were brought up (and that we did not have a choice about, but it really shaped us)?
One would say that it is social darwinism that causes progress. But what is progress? is it only technological? how about social progress? spiritual progress? emotional progress? how about balance? how can one keep balance inside with such a competitive environment haunting him/her? What about the stress this environment creates? how will these people, that are such heavy competition, so much stress, be relaxed to create and raise a family? low birthrate is a significant problem for the western countries, and people working in such a heavily competitive environment are too stressed out to think of creating a family.
Do we, as people, still enjoy the sunset? do we still dream about the magic moment when we hold hands with our dearest under a full moon on a beach, or our minds is on profit-profit-profit only?
There are thousands of questions that are far more important than those silly Google puzzles. I couldn't care less if there are 5 or 100 C++ cast types. Life has much more important issues.
It is a great disappoinment when our society's only purpose is to gain more profit. It means we have failed as a society. We've lost our touch with what makes us humans...one day, when AI will be an everyday reality, what will become of all these clever people Google have hired? they will starve to death, along with all the millions of poor people working at McDonalds, because the Google of that era will not need them!
It is also a great disappoinment when our society continues to use sub-optimal tools to do a job, and all the brains are just used to create more profit, where they could have been used to improve and optimize the tools we work on.
If you now think I am bitter because Google rejected me, let me tell you that I don't live in USA, and I am employed, and very much respected, admired and even envied in my job. After all these years working in a corporate environment, I really haven't figured out the 'why' behind all we do: we spend so much time trying to develop new weapons, so much time trying to outrun and outsmart our competitors, so much time trying to cover our wrong-doings...but we have failed miserably to be warm, sincere and offer a big smile to others from inside our hearts on a day-by-day basis! we have failed in LOVE...
(I apologise for the bitterness and the long post.)
It's actually misquoted on 60 minutes. Their real motto is "Don't be evil." It's on their website somewhere.
Speak for yourself.
There are two basic categories of workers: the smart/stupid categorization, and the lazy/productive categorization. Combining the two produces four basic types:
1) Smart and Lazy (the worker wont get alot done but also wont cause any serious trouble).
2) Smart and Productive (these are the people you want -- and it might take nine interviews to find them).
3) Stupid and Lazy (again, no real problem except a drain on your bottom line).
4) Stupid and Productive (this is the worst person to hire -- they work tirelessly to destroy your company).
I report to Colonel 2.6.1 and General Chaos is his boss.
True. I use google more than any online/dead tree help if I get stuck. That said, the mark of a professional is knowing what to search for and if you don't understand the system enough you ain't going to know.
Anyone that takes 14 times to figure out if an employee is 1. suitable and 2. better than the other candidates is wasting a lot of business resources. If you can't tell on the first interview through half an hour of specific questions you're not a great hiring manager. It may take 2 or 3 follow-ups to address specific hypothetical job-related questions but that's it. Anything more and it's not a job interview but a pre-work endurance test. Personally, I would find it insulting to have to sit through that kind of process, especially if I was qualified.
I have a friend who applied at Chapters and was told up front that it was going to be a 5 interview process over 2 months. This was for a freakin' $7 an hour stock job. Even though she was more than qualified and had already accepted the lesser reality of working a shitty retail job, by the 3rd call back she told them to shove it. And don't say that's what the interview is designed to screen out. She was honest and hardworking and would have outperformed any of the "me too" candidates.
TO BE GOOD AT SOMETHING is Phraseologism /A term together with a word or words with which the term commonly occurs in specialized discourse/
means that these words together form a fixed combination commonly used in the language & such
combination has a specific meaning often different from the meaning of each of the words separately.
cheers to linguistics !!!!
It's actually a drug test, not a piss test. They just want to know if you were high on something. If you want to any company, you better not be high.
Exception maybe the patent office. By the type of patents they approve, I wonder if they're all high on drug.
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
I may have to add RTFM and Googling for Information to my resumee as IT skills. It would be a good way to gauge my future employer if they knew what those two things were... If anything, we'd get a good laugh out of them during the interview.
Andrew
Why did I lurk so long before registering for a Slashdot account? I could have had a Slashdot ID of less than 100000.
I had to go to so many interviews for one job that my boss at the time finally said "Either you have really bad teeth or you are looking for another job." Lets just say I had good teeth.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
I picked up one some years back, mainly because I was too lazy to switch out of the academic rut for quite a long time.
I constantly read debates whether companies should hire PhDs because (1) they are too stuck up to perform more routine tasks, (2) ask for too much money, etc. However I notice the real money engines- MicroSoft in the 1980s/1990s and Google in the 2000s- did seem to accumulate alot of them. There didnt seem to be the usual prejudiuce for or against a PhD. If your degree work or business experience demonstrated great intelligence and creativity- they want ed you, whether you were "over" or "under" educated.
One of the more interesting comments in the 60-Minutes piece was about the peer pressure not show off one's new found stock option wealth. At many other Silicon Valley companies the nearly rich would quickly buy expensive cars and houses. Most of the people interviewed bragged how modestly they lived and how flashy people would not last at google.
"Filthy rich people can afford to be socialists."
...there are many of us whom don't have one...
...usually looking at degree's...
who, not whom.
degrees, not degree's.
It may have just been the individuals who interviewed me, but when they started going through my employment history and hit my military service, the interview took a dive.
They pulled out the Google mantra of "Do No Harm" and started asking pointed questions about how I could possibly work for them when I was this horrible warmonger. They would ask me what I did while I was in (I was M.I. = Intel), and then started asking me if I thought the intelligence products I'd developed had killed anyone.
At that point, all technical questions regarding my technical ability were basically dropped in favor of bashing my experiences in the Army.
I was really disappointed - it seemed like a great working environment, and I was more that qualified for the job (really!). It was before the IPO, so that would have been nice as well (*wink*), but I really wanted to be there for the atmosphere more than anything else.
Any others with this kind of experience? Or was my disaster a localized incident?
-AutoNiN
Pretentious is an adjective, pretentiously is an adverb.
The one thing that was both thrilling and frightening about college was the degree of autonomy. In grade school, if you don't go to class, the teacher notes it, the administration gets on your back and the school can even send law enforcement after you. In college, if you don't go to class, you just deal with the consequences - bad grades. And I saw a good number of people who couldn't handle that autonomy - they could make grades in high school with teachers and parents on their case; in college, they couldn't handle the lack of structure. In short, college teaches you to manage the priority of work and how to meet various deadlines. That becomes a big differentiation in the the workplace. Generally, college educated people can work unsupervised and get it it done by a deadline. This isn't just a matter of motivation, but is an actual skill that not everyone has.
While many people without college degrees can do organize their own work as well, they only pick it up over time. Many skilled trades such as plumbers and mechanics don't require that you prioritize work; most tradesmen just do one job (fix that sink, install that furnace), then move on to the next one. Even if they work without direct supervision, their priorities are short term and usually set by someone else - ie, go fix the sinks at these four addresses today.
That reality hit one of the managers in my area. He originally managed only IT people, but recently inherited a customer service call group as well. While he adjusted to it, one of the differences was that he couldn't just tell the customer service employees to do something. He had to tell them to do it, make sure they understood what they were told, and then have someone check up that they're in fact doing what you told them.
So, along with that tolerance for bullshit comes the motivation to deal with it without someone looking over your shoulder all the time.
See, this is the exact thing I am talking about. You are displaying your ignorance of algorithms here. A vector and a List (eg, ArrayList in Java) are *very* different. Sure, the both implement the java.util.List interface, but that is of no real concern. A Vector can access elements in O(1) time - a list can not. However, inserting into a list is O(1) time, inserting into a vector is not. These ideas are *fundamental* and are very important, regardless of the language being used.
Excuse me, but do you understand what the implentations of List do? I guess not. It's generally not a Linked List (which is what you are thinking of). There is in fact a LinkedList class (in 1.5) and ArrayList is not it.
Why do you think "ArrayList" has "array" in the name? It's a list backed by an array, O(1) access. The difference between Vector in Java and ArrayList, is mainly one of thread synchronization around calls into the list. Even then ArrayList is really better as you can synchronize calls if you like with an optional wrapper.
You have just proved my point again, at how dangerous it is when you do not understand the libraries throughly enough to know what the implentation is going to do. You would have chosen Vector over ArrayList seeking O(1) access but instead would have cost yourself a substantial synchronization penalty for no reason! I have seen the same behaviour in countless junior Java programmers, mistakenly using Vector instead of a List reference.
Why? Why should I care what IDE someone uses as long as they write the code properly. If they are more efficient using SharpDevelop or vi, all the power to them.
Well in the case of C# (which you also seem to know little about) the IDE is the language. They are essentially inseperable, at least not without great cost in productivity. In other languages sure, the IDE is not really important.
Same thing goes with the Java libraries. You don't need to know them by heart, all you need to know is the URL to the API spec and what youa re looking for. It is **far** more important to decide to use the correct algorithm (eg, a list vs a vector), before you get to the API.
Once again, as you have shown it's also important to understand the IMPLEMENTATION behind the API as much as the algorithm you are gunning for. Algorithms are I agree key to understand - but beyond that understanding the library you are about to invoke and the nuances of using it are equally important in any modern language. Otherwise you do things like adding strings without realizing the cost.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The article includes "If anybody got a Porsche or a Ferrari right now at Google, they'd probably be drummed out of the company," observes John Battelle, an author and entrepreneur who has been following Silicon Valley companies for 20 years. I call BS. Google is opening a new campus in Kirland, WA (another Seattle burb, next to Redmond) in an effort to poach as many devs as possible from Microsoft. My wife was out driving near there and saw a brand new Mercedes SL500 (about $90k) with the license "GOOGLE1".
I'd say that's a sufficiently good aptitude test. Consistently performing well doing what you'd be paid to do is kinda the idea of an aptitude test anyways.
Similarly, solve the Riemann Hypothesis, and some universities will clamor to give you honorary math PhDs. The RH was your aptitude test. Just because it's not given to you for 45 minutes with a pencil and a sheet of paper doesn't mean it's not a test.
So is well.
If you fake who you are, I will throw you in this WELL.
Supervisory Control and Data Aquisition. Also called HMI (Human-Machine Interface), previously MMI (Man-Machine Interface).
Virtual guages and logging of data, sometimes with alarming. Basically a GUI for a plant-floor, or a chemical plant, or a water treatment facility, etc.
Largish commercial market, but there's not a lot to know, although I don't understand why so few people actually grok it who are involved in it.
I used to work for Rockwell Software, as an apps engineer on their RSView32 HMI development and runtime engine. You could do a lot of nice stuff with it, but it was obvious most people hae no idea how to make a useful UI.
Today, covers come in many shapes - round, square, rectangular, oblong with rounded corners. But older covers tend to be round.
This reflects manufacturing technology a century ago. In 1900, you could cast metal, so you could get any rough shape you wanted. Machining was limited to flat planing, grinding, drilling, and turning on a lathe. Milling machines for heavy work didn't exist yet. Welding wasn't working yet, either. Turning on a lathe was the only really high-precision operation available.
So you could make flat things, or round things, or imprecise things, or riveted things. Look at a steam locomotive from about 1900, and that's what you'll see. Almost everything is either flat or a full circle. You won't see arbitrary curves on parts that have to fit. You won't see rectangular inside corners.
Actually, it's not making the cover that was hard in 1900. You could make a square cover. But making the ring into which it fits was tough. The inside of the ring has to be flat, or the cover will rattle. An unmachined casting will be too rough. Some finish machining will be required.
Casting a round ring is straightforward. You make a wooden master, press it into a box of moulding sand, and pour in molten metal. Straightforward foundry work. Finish-machining the ring on a lathe is easy. The only surfaces that matter are the ones where the lid touches the ring. One clamping of the work to a flat spindle plate, two cuts, one for each surface, using stock lathe cutters that can be resharpened on an ordinary grinding wheel. This could all be done cheaply in 1900.
Today it's no problem to make a square frame. You'd make a square frame by cutting angle stock into sections and welding the corners. Clean up the welds with a power grinder. Or make a rough casting, then do a quick pass with a CNC grinder to true it up. So today, you see square frames with square covers.
But try to make a heavy square frame with 1900 technology. You can rough cast the frame, but smoothing out the inside edges is a tough job. You can't use a lathe; the workpiece isn't round. You don't have a milling machine. You can't get a planer into the corners. It's hand work, with files and grinding stones. That's slow and expensive, unaffordable for a cheap generic product.
And that's the real answer to why manhole covers are round.
I just hope that I can speak and write better as time goes on.
testing out my trending skills
Reference.com gets slashdotted every single time there is a /. post.
Slashdot - News for pedantic Nerds. Stuff that matters.
Here are my observations, as promised yesterday: I found it interesting to compare the processes of both Google and Microsoft. Microsoft seems more willing to spend money on you. They give you incredible flexibility with travel arrangements and let you stay up to two extra days to see Seattle. I interviewed in 2003 for an internship and spent the entire weekend out there and Microsoft paid for all of it. It was as much fun as a solo vacation could be. Google on the other hand was very stingy. They required that I take only the cheapest flights that they could find and wouldn't let me stay any extra time (I asked, since I hadn't really been in the bay area before). This is more frustrating since the fact that they flew me home the next morning seemed to be pretty influential in their decision, not allowing me to meet with all the right people. Google also had a less formal expense system. It also took them a lot longer to reimburse me for my meals and I had to pay for the car rental upfront (which they didn't warn me of). As for the questions, I don't know if I should give away all of them, because from what I hear the companies don't really like that (I still may end up working for either of them some day). The Microsoft ethics question was a complete hypothetical, about a company that created medical equipment, not about something Microsoft-related. Many of Microsoft's questions required me to design a product that Microsoft would probably not be interested in. For my final interview I then had to explain why Microsoft WOULD be interested in selling such a product. That last interview didn't go as well as the rest (another reason it didn't is that in the middle of the interview I realized that I had lost my cell phone, so I was distracted the rest of the interview). One of the fun parts about interviewing at Google is lunch. You've probably heard about their great cafeteria: the food is amazing and free. Because of this the lines seem to be very long to eat, but everyone at lunch seems pretty happy, as opposed to the Microsoft cafeteria that I ate at, where most people didn't seem so enthusiastic (although I have certainly seen far worse employee lunch rooms in terms of people's demeanor). At Microsoft your lunch is one of your interviews. I found that my lunch interviewers were often the nicest interviewers. They asked the easiest questions and seemed to focus mostly on my opinions and less on my creativity or technical ability. This was my experience with my two trips out there, so I don't know if this standard. My first time the interviewer took me to a restaurant and put it on an American Express card (I'm assuming he can expense that) and this past year we just ate in the cafeteria. In the morning the recruiter gives you free lunch tickets for you and your interviewer. Since I didn't use them my first year I gave mine to a friend of mine who was working for Microsoft so he can have a free lunch (not like he needs it though). Unlike Microsoft, Google gave us all lots of swag. I came home with a whole lot of pens, and the coolest freebie, a Blogger sweatshirt, although that was a special gift from one of my interviewers . (I was an original Blogger Pro customer but didn't read the end of the email where they told us we get free sweatshirts for supporting the company before Google bought them until after the deadline, so she got me a sweatshirt.) At Google I felt a lot like a group of interviewees. We all had name tags and had a lot of time to meet each other. Everybody was my age (graduating senior) and the majority of the kids were from nearby schools like Stanford. Many of them only had half the interviews that I did, and were scheduled to come back the next day for more. I met one girl that originally had her interviews scheduled for the day that they announced the IPO but they sent her home because no one wanted to interview her. Luckily she was a Stanford student. At Microsoft an interviewee feels very alone. I spent very little time around other candidates other than the 20 mi