Slashdot Mirror
The Key To Interviewing At Google
Nerval's Lobster writes Wired has an excerpt from a new book of Google-centric workplace advice, written by Laszlo Bock, the search-engine giant's head of "People Operations" (re: Human Resources). In an interesting twist, Bock kicks off the excerpt by describing the brainteaser questions that Google is famous for tossing at job candidates as "useless," before suggesting that some hiring managers at the company might still use them. ("Sorry about that," he offered.) Rather than ask candidates to calculate the number of golf balls that can fit inside a 747 (or why manhole covers are round), Google now runs its candidates through a battery of work-sample tests and structured interviews, which its own research and data-crunching suggest is best at finding the most successful candidates. Google also relies on a tool (known as qDroid), which automates some of the process—the interviewer can simply input which job the candidate is interviewing for, and receive a guide with optimized interview questions. It was only a matter of time before people got sick of questions like, "Why are manhole covers round?"
In fact, the ones here are far often square than round, so the answer to that question really is "because otherwise they would not fit the round manhole". Second, It took them pretty long to figure out their interview-questions are bogus. I interviewed there in 2008 on the request of a friend that wanted me for his team. Total failure as I knew far too much about the things they were asking me and the ones asking were not domain experts and hence did not understand the answers. In retrospect, that is fine. I now know several people that left Google, because they did not find the company to their tastes at all anymore.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The key to interviewing at Google is to drink the kool aide before you arrive. Download and use the core software they make available. If you're not enthusiastic enough about their tool chain to do that, mere competence won't carry you over the finish line.
Most companies couldn't get away with that but Google is Google. At least for now.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Probably this was brought to the mind of many people reading the article, so I might as well post it.
http://www.sellsbrothers.com/posts/details/12395
I couldn't resist answering this:
Why are manhole covers round?
Because if they were square, they could be turned sideways, rotated 45 degrees, and dropped through the hole. As it turns out, this holds true for any shape with an even number of sides, until the length of each side drops below a threshold that's related to the lip of the hole.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Is not to play.. .
When they start to reduce the process of interviewing down to a standardized series of questions and tests, they remove the human from the process too. Who wants to work for a company that isn't about HUMAN interaction first, that isn't willing to treat their employees less like interchangeable cogs and more like unique individuals.
This is the end of innovation and uniqueness for Google, or at least a sign that it's falling out of favor. This is the MBA mindset of trying to remove the variables in the process, standardize on some ill fitting solution in an attempt to be efficient. This means that they won't get innovation because failure is becoming something to avoid, taking risks leads to mistakes that cost money and time. When this becomes the prevailing attitude at a company, that company then becomes risk adverse and innovation slows down.
The problem here is Google is nothing but a search engine and software development house if it doesn't continue to innovate. It will die like Yahoo, AOL and all the others if it doesn't stop this.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
OK. Where I live the covers are rectangular. Please provide an equivalent set of answers on why manhole covers are rectangular.
1. People where you live are stupid
2. The things have hinges
2a. The Mayor's brother is heavily invested in a hinge factory
3. With hinges on one side, you can put on a lock to keep inquisitive yet still stupid people out
3a. The Mayor's other brother is heavily invested in a manhole lock company
4. The mayor's brother in law owns the rectangular manhole cover factory
5. The covers are rectangular because the holes are rectangular because the pipes are rectangular
5a. The pipes are rectangular because the mayor's other brother in law owns the sewer unclogging company
5b. The mayor's uncle owns the rectangular pipe company
6. More golfballs fit in the holes that way
I'm sure the slashdot community can add many more.
-the doubleclick of the 2000s
-shitty UIs created by incompetent neckbeards
-never ending beta
-NSAs bitch
A number of people from my team had accepted recruitment attempts by Google, with my knowledge and support because I couldn't pay them as much and they'd outgrown our technical challenges, and I have roughly a dozen personal acquaintances working there. All confirm that the interview and application review process is so long that by the time Google even discusses salary details or makes an offer, the candidate has usually taken a job elsewhere. So people looking for work who can't wait 3 months or longer while Google's HR department "negotiates" all the requirements and approvals at all the different bureaucratic levels are lost to Google. This means that new candidates who already have kids, mortgages, medical insurance needs, or even pet food to pay for are unavailable to complete the interview.
I still get called at least once a year by their HR, and I've explained the problem, and they admit it when I name candidates and timelines. It's even funnier when I name their manager's personal hairstyle and taste in clothing: I think they have the noobs call me, just to scare the bejeepers out of them..
That kind of delay makes excellent excuses to hire *yet more* HR staff and expand the bureaucracy, hoping to "optimize" it. But the result is devastating to their ability to hire good people. The only time the rigmarole is avoided is when someone in senior management has a personal favorite candidate, often a relative or close friend from another workplace, whom they sponsor through the process. The result is cronyism and intellectual inbreeding.
Ummm. The median age at Google is 29. You can do the math. There are not many 50+ people there. There are a shitload of 25s.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
Ummm. The median age at Google is 29.
Cite?
I'm a Google employee and have access to some internal statistics, and I can tell you it's older than that. I don't know how much I can share, but I'll mention that the median age for engineers in Google US is closer to 35, and about a quarter of Google US engineers are over 40. That's consistent with my current team; my previous team was older, probably half over 40 with a fair number in their 50s and a few in their 60s.
Further, the median age is climbing. Partly because existing employees are aging but also because the age of new hires is increasing.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
So, when a 50+ bright person comes, they may adjust the job description and offer him/her something instead of letting him/her go. Maybe something more managerial.
Only if he or she is interested in management. The engineering track at Google goes up to the VP level, so there's no need for engineers to jump over to management unless they want to. I know lots of 50+ engineers at Google (I'm a Google SWE, and 45 years old).
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.