If I'm perfectly honest, the reason I haven't applied to companies like Google is because their process scares me. I studied at a modest university and achieved a good degree, but the kind of horror stories I hear make me firmly believe that I received a terrible education, because the level of employees they seem to attract (Jon Skeet, anyone?) are a class apart from myself. It didn't help that the university next door, a top ten institution, was regularly visited by the likes of Google.
Don't let them make you feel like that. What matters is what you make and how you interact with people around you.
I've met geniuses who don't make anything interesting out of their lives. They just play mind games and show off. Nobody really likes them or their "high standards." Usually they just criticize everybody and everything in some way or another, instead of helping out. And they are often lazy, covering themselves by stating things are not "challenging" or worthy of their highness.
They remind me of those rich guys with sports cars. They wouldn't win any race. What matters is how you do with what you have. The house of cards of arrogants falls down if enough people just ignore them. Like the typical high school hotness scenario.
My ideal hiring test:
- What do you code for fun?
- How do you help people around you?
- Favorite non-fiction books?
- Would you like to come over for a hackathon next saturday?
Edit: I know one counter-example within Google, though. YMMV
I very much felt the same way at the beginning of the process (and throughout the process). But you've got to remember that the worst thing that can happen is they say no. And saying no doesn't necessarily say anything about you, interviews can get derailed by any number of things none of which imply that you are unqualified. I have blanked on obvious things, i have coded horrible mistakes on whiteboards. That doesn't mean i was unqualified though.
Google never visited my university either, but i got approached for an interview (linkedIn ftw) and i accepted it because saying no, or not applying is like turning down free lottery tickets. you might not win but it doesn't hurt.
I'm personally more concerned with the huge time-waste of the interview process, then getting a rejection after all that.
(I'm also concerned about their discriminatory hiring practices -- selecting principally from specific schools rather than looking at individual candidates)
I attended a "modest" university. I am not Internet famous. I am old.
Google will not leave me alone for all of the times I have told them "I am not interesting in working at your company." I think they assume I am kidding.
It's my experience that if you really want to work there they probably want you.
When I interviewed some months ago, I had one telephone interview and five on-site interviews. If I understood them correctly, some candidates also go through a second telephone interview. So a maximum of seven if you include phone interviews.
The interviews were quite challenging (and of increasing difficulty), but there was nothing even resembling a trick question or a mind teaser. I researched a bit before the interviews, and credible results consistently said that Google always had a policy against such questions. I wonder how the head of HR can then talk about it as if they were asking such questions recently?
All in all, the hiring process was challenging and exhausting, but never felt unfair or sloppy/undirected.
I did > 8 interviews with Google and never encountered anything resembling manhole/ping-pong ball problems; this was more than two years ago and my friends who've interviewed since haven't mentioned them either.
Still, limiting the number of interviews to 5 or so is at the very least a positive step towards reducing the chance of people meeting someone from what steve yegge calls their "interview anti-loop" (see: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/03/get-that-job-at-goog...; short version - sets of interviewers whose favourite subjects/questions happen to not overlap with your particular specialities, and will therefore have a much dimmer view of your talents than differently focused colleagues).
Also, a problem with many many interviews is it's even harder for a candidate who has been given no significant post-rejection feedback to figure out what needed improvement or where you weren't a good fit; I'm reduced to speculating that maybe number 7 was a bit iffy? Or maybe 4 and 7?
I have a feeling the spokesperson in the interview is describing interviews for positions other than software engineering. It's been well known that Google doesn't ask brainteaser-type questions for it's SE positions. Positions like Product Manager on the other hand are a different story.
I went through 8 interviews (over the course of 8 months) before I got an offer from Google. By the time Google gave me the offer, I already accepted an offer from the other company. I told the HR of Google that their process sucks (of course, I said it indirectly) and she agreed with me. I'm glad to hear that Google is finally making changes here.
Are they still limiting it to only PhDs and Masters? That to me always struck me as their biggest mistake.
The common perception from people in the industry is that many of the best programmers are self taught. That doesn't preclude doing a degree of course, however even the really good programmers I've met that did degrees say that they really ramped up their learning efforts after leaving university (and that was my experience too).
I work at Google, and have a BS in CS from The College of New Jersey. So if they ever filtered on graduate degrees or prestigious schools, it's no longer the case. In fact, your description of a self-taught programmer fits me pretty well.
Good to know they've unbent a little on that as well. Of course it then begs the question "how then do you hire good programmers?". Solving that problem would be really interesting (my pay might go up :D )
I doubt that Google ever tried to hire only MS/PhDs. I went through interviews and got an offer when I was only a BSCS student. I also know a lot of people who don't have MS/PhDs and work at Google.
On your 2nd point, I totally agree with you that self-taught programmers should actually get a degree in CS or any related major. Although the programming classes might bore them out, there will be courses and professors who will take them to somewhere they would have never known before. This is just my generalization and, of course, will not apply to everyone ;)
"The new approach includes a new “rule of five” that limits the number of interviews a candidate can attend to no more than that number, said Laszlo Bock, head of human resources. In the past, would-be Googlers were often subjected to 12-14 interviews, he added."
Wow, they actually consider 5 interviews to be a lean approach to interviewing; no wonder their process is convoluted. Methinks Google seriously needs to rethink their org structure.
Well, depends on how you count. Is 4 one-two hour interviews by different people on the same day considered one interview or four? (Assuming, of course, a preliminary phone interview would constitute the fifth)
They've been sending recruiters to me regularly for about six months. I get regular pitches and emails about working for them about twice a month from various people.
I'd like to be able to consider it but I'm not in their candidate pool (around forty, no regular job for a few years, non-tech schooling, travel, no high tech work for years before that).
Must be hard to reach out to the kind of people Google does like to hire. My old friends from that group are always busy.
Politics is what happens when three or more people get together to make a decision. It doesn't matter who you are, that is still true. The only way to avoid it is to work exclusively for yourself, and also somehow avoid all contact with customers. Good luck with that, and may the ramen noodles be with you, always.
Given your situation, and the fact that going to a couple of interviews is enormously low-risk compared to the potential reward, maybe you should say yes to the Google recruiters? What is the worst case scenario here?
Also, maybe they heard (through the grapevine) that you do good work. Stranger things have happened. :D
I'd like to be able to consider it but I'm not in their candidate pool (around forty, no regular job for a few years, non-tech schooling, travel, no high tech work for years before that).
I am not in their candidate pool, either by your standards. Quickly approaching forty, dropped out of 'society' for 5+ years, non-high tech work during that period, no Ivy League degree. And, yet, despite the fact that I have made -exceptionally- clear that I have no interest in working at their company, they will not stop recruiting me.
I think you should go for it and put in that application. It's way more likely that they want you to work there than that you want to work for them.
This is terrible advice. Going through Google HR's meat grinder you have a small probability to get in. The process is quite random and it takes a lot of time and energies from you.
Don't gamble on 1/10. Most likely, you'll feel like crap for nothing. And don't listen to the 1/10ers, they often rationalize and are fooled by selection bias.
they often rationalize and are fooled by selection bias.
Assuming you are talking about me, that's crazy. I have asked, literally, a handful of times that they never contact me again.
It might be selection bias, but it's not rationalization and it's not fooling me. It's annoying the crap out me. I hope they go bother someone who is interested in working there.
Of course I love that they're seeking out entrepreneurial talent, but the article doesn't seem to make mention of how they're going to target that in interview questions. Definitely curious...
I had an interviewer who thought he was the only person using the round manhole cover question. When he asked it I instantly answered "so they don't fall in the hole" and he freaked out. "Wow, you are so smart, I've never had anyone answer that question so quickly!"
I don't like those problems. IMHO, they encourage rationalizing things that probably just evolved/happened over time. The real answer for me is because no better shape happened or showed to be significantly better. Also, since almost all follow the same shape, it's harder for other shapes to enter the market. Winner takes all.
It's not arbitrary. "Because it can't fall in the hole" is a compelling geometric and safety reason. The circular manhole cover is the simplest shape that has this property.
The reasons for making the access tunnel beneath cylindrical in shape are actually far more compelling (remove less material and create a stronger hole).
Nevertheless, rectangular manhole covers are pretty common.
Nevertheless, rectangular manhole covers are pretty common.
I never claimed the market was perfect. I find that perfect omniscient markets a terrible assumption to base analysis on.
The combination of superior cover safety and superior tunnel structure are pretty compelling, but not everyone chooses the optimal solution. That's just not how humans operate.
They still ask silly questions. It's almost like Jeopardy for Nerds.
* Convert decimal 11 to binary.
* How many bits are in Unix permissions.
* What does set UID mean.
* How do you rm a file named -f
* How are hard links different from soft links
* What does const mean
* More and more Jeopardy for Geeks questions
It was like a Unix/C trivia game. No reasonable person would name a file -f (but that's beside the point)...it's just fun thinking of all the ways you could remove it if you ever had to.
Funny, I got those sort of questions on my first phone screen, and I called them "pulse-checkers". As in, checking the candidate has a pulse and hasn't blatantly lied on their resume.
I would expect anyone who's been through a CS101-level class to do small decimal<->binary conversions in their head, and anyone who's administered a UNIX system to know how to terminate an option list.
By my rough calculations they're hiring 1 person for every 650 applications. That's quite the winnowing process.
If they have two pre-qualifying rounds of CV burning where at each stage they trash 80% of the CVs, then they'd be down to about 26 before even talking to anyone. Now four rounds of interviews where 50% of the people are eliminated and you still have 1.625 people left...
We used to have ridiculous numbers like that at MSFT. If Google is reporting them the same way, they're not counting re-applications and people who are completely unqualified and either hoping for a lottery win or are just satisfying some unemployment requirement.
Seriously, the recruiting folks told me that the vast majority of the "blind submit" resumes that came in via e-mail and website forms were unchanged duplicates of things already in the database.
I googled for the proper spelling of "Reuleaux triangle", and Wikipedia's article has this:
> Because all diameters are the same length, the Reuleaux triangle,
> with all other curves of constant width, is an answer to the question
> "Other than a circle, what shape can you make a manhole cover so that
> it cannot fall down through the hole?"
First off, there will be a small lip to keep it from falling in flat. This means that the hole is actually smaller than the manhole cover by an inch or more.
Second, no matter how you orient an equilateral triangle with on point facing down the hole, there is an edge across the top that is too big to fall in. The way to visualize this, if you take one edge of an equilateral triangle and sweep it in a circle around one end, it will be outside of the triangle at all points except where the corners meet. So trying to drop it in any position other than with the edges lined up will make it impossible to fall through. And since there is a lip when the edges line up, it can't fall through.
In contrast with a square or rectangle, if you sweep one of the edges it will be inside of the square or rectangle at some points (on a rectangle, you have to use the small sides). This means all you have to do is shove one edge of the cover down the hole and it will fall in.
> First off, there will be a small lip to keep it from falling in flat. This means that the hole is actually smaller than the manhole cover by an inch or more.
Exactly, and with a big enough lip/flange, ANY shape will work.
Not a square. The diagonal dimension of a square is sqrt(2) * the edge length, so roughly 1.414*edge length. So if you rotate the square cover 45 degrees, you can kick it right down the hole no problem. Sure you could have a cover that was several inches bigger than the lip, but assuming the lip is only going to be on the order of .5-3" and the cover is going to be around 24-36" wide, you can always rotate the square one ot fall down there.
Your flange is not "big enough". For an absurd example, consider a hole 3" to a side, and a flange 48' in width.
That said, I honestly meant this as a mathematical/rhetorical statement, not a practical one. So yes, you're correct that for any reasonable flange width (given the assumption we're talking about steel/iron manhole covers, and accepted values of the material's strength, etc.), some shapes wouldn't qualify.
My point was to show that the question, taken at its face value, isn't even a good question. It assumes a flange, or no shape would work as a cover, as the cover would simply fall into its own hole. Thus, if we're to assume a flange (or a taper; it could be argued wine bottle stoppers and the holes they "cover" are both "circles"), we should be able to assume one of arbitrarily large size, and then ANY shape will work.
