Slashdot Mirror
Google Vs. Microsoft: a Tale of Two Interviews
jfruh writes "You might be a bit jealous of Andrew Weiss: fresh out of college, he got interviews with both Microsoft and Google. He discusses (to the extent NDAs allow) the differences between the two experiences, ranging from the silly (Google's famous gourmet cafeteria vs. Microsoft's gaming room) to the serious (Google's technical emphasis vs. Microsoft's focus on explanatory and consulting skills.)"
He went in unprepared for possible the toughest IT interview of his life and he did not get the position. BIG SURPRISE. then he had some job leads spoon fed to him, interviewed at a few other places and nailed the MS interview. the end. saved you the 45 seconds it takes to read it. the position at MS was more MIS/marketing, and they asked "softer" questions, big whoop. Just some ivy league brat who didn't nail his first interview, and wanted a way to bitch.
Here's my experience in Google vs Amazon
In summary, Google's interviews don't get a flying rats behind about anything but microbenchmarks on small pieces of code. Amazon cared more about technical design but started asking me questions on the Linux Kernel (I was applying for Java Engineer position)
Some more odds:
One of the Google interviews disagreed with me that a Java HashSet was not Big O(1) for the contains() method when I wrote out my sample code. I pointed out (very kindly) that I believe HashSet is backed by HashMap in Java, which is constant time. He said he didn't think that was true and I conceded and said, "I can assume then for now that it is not constant time then." I was extremely polite, but I'm fairly certain that cost me the job.
The Amazon interview didn't go after they started asking me the internals of the Linux kernel. Then, the gentlemen asked me to implement a C function. I stopped him immediately after he was done speaking and said, "There must be a mistake, while i'm more than willing to attempt this in C, I thought I was applying for a Java position." He said he didn't know Java and asked me to implement atoi() in Java then. Needless to say he wasn't satisfied with any iteration of my Java code and made it a point that C was far superior to Java when we were done.
I really wanted the Google job, and I feel I was definitely qualified. What makes me feel better about it I guess is that it seems some Googlers couldn't pass the Google interview.
Not to mention that I'm sure both Google and Microsoft employ plenty of minimum wage workers...
Actually Google singlehandedly raised the "minimum wage" across the Silicon Valley back in the day with all other tech giants having to catch up to avoid losing talent... don't sound so bitter man...
Bow before me, for I am root.
Why so many? Sounds like huge pain in the ass. I get irritated if interviews run more than 1 hour. If you want my time, pay me for it.
Agreed. They may be the top of the prestige ladder, but google and microsoft are both places where you'll be expected to put in long hours for average pay. Maybe the hours and hours of interviews is really just to determine who values their time the least?
I was very interested to read your post, having just recently interviewed with both Amazon and Google.
Here's my experience with each. Amazon was four 45-minute interviews, with a 15 minute break between each. Clearly they had decided on the problems for each candidate beforehand, as each interviewer asked a different question or two about my previous experiences and then a technical question that took the remainder of the interview time. I was also given the opportunity to ask about their experiences, which was actually quite illuminating as it was clear their past projects heavily influenced each technical question they asked.
Google was five hour-long interviews with only a minute break or so between them. Additionally, there was an hour-long guided lunch after the third interview. My first interviewer gave me a rundown of how the process worked (in particular, they had a sheet keeping track of what problems I had been asked that was passed on to each subsequent interviewer) and then each interview pretty much was 100% dedicated to solving a technical problem. The only person who asked anything about my previous experience and gave me any information about the workplace culture was my lunchtime interviewer. From what I gathered, it sounds like after a training session most developers are put into an interview rotation, which I suppose makes sense when one considers the number of applicants they must have. As a result, my last interview also had an observer present, presumably in training.
I won't talk about the questions asked except to indicate that both companies asked interesting and engaging technical questions - only one of which (Google's "warm up question") I'd seen on glassdoor or other interview question lists. But Amazon seemed much more interested in my experience in addition to my technical abilities, whereas talking to Google was more like taking a standardized exam.
Out of curiosity, what is the difference in the amount of money paid to Google for the software you want help with versus what has been paid to Microsoft?
Why so many?
Sounds like huge pain in the ass. I get irritated if interviews run more than 1 hour. If you want my time, pay me for it.
Going AC since frankly my work history is my own, and I'd rather not have any negative commentary that follows be pinned to current/past employers.
Frankly a bit surprised seeing people make comments of this sort... I strongly suspect most of the folk making claims like this frankly either are naive and doing entry level (think university assistant admin where you're just starting out- which was usually hour to two, single interview in my experience), or blatantly arrogant (and perhaps a few who actually have skills to match their mouth, although the mouth usually offsets the skills).
~15 years in, I can't recall *ever* having a single hour interview w/ a company once beyond getting university positions- frankly unless they already know me very, very well (have worked w/ me and it's a formality), an hour isn't enough time to suss out the person and is a sign they frankly shouldn't be in charge of hiring since they don't know WTF they'yre doing. I say this coming from offers/interviewing w/ bigger names like google/intel/facebook to smaller like yelp/twitter, to early stage startups (think pre series A), all highly technical positions.
Each and every one has always been multi-hour, multiple person. The interviewing varies (sometimes technical grunts trying to verify skillset/ability to play nice with others), to soft-interviewing where they're the dept. head/CTO/CEO are trying to sell you on why you should join, and feel out your comp requirements- think salary vs equity preferences, if you're excited enough they can go lower, etc.
There is one sole exception that comes to mind, and it was for a well known company- in that case it was a 90 minute on the phone interview, sub-contracted position (think warm body provided by a HR firm), and mostly turned into me advising the client on what they should do for problems they were having, rather than them quizzing me. Took it (was interesting work, even if as a contracted warm body), but it was pretty obvious they weren't screening worth a damn, and that they were open to high turn over/canning rates (thus less of an investment for them, especially via the HR firm angle). Even then, that incident was an exception- the other times I've been in a similar scenario, it was always a more thorough validation; which frankly is fine, made it easier to demonstrate "and this is why you're not going to argue, and you're going to pay me exactly what I want if you want my skillset" ;)