It seems to me that Google's perceived hiring issue is "we can't tell the candidates apart, because they all studied our interview questions they found online." (and not "our process is fundamentally broken to the core" like it probably should be).

In that context, "give take-home tests" and "ask better questions" sound like the exact opposite of good answers.

I think this is a problem that's unique to very large corporations. Not only do thousands of people interview there, meaning questions and answers are likely to be traded verbatim online, but there's also actually an incentive to cheat your way in: you can hide out for 1-2 years and acquire a horde of cash and resume fodder.

Google have actually made this problem worse for themselves, too. By overvaluing their interview process, they've made cheating even more lucrative. Cheat your way into even an offer there and you have something valuable to put on your resume!

I suspect you haven't seen a lot of cheaters on take-home tests before because at a company like Matasano, there's little incentive to cheat your way in. You certainly can't hide out in a corner doing no work there.

Bummer. Her career seems to be predicated on a correlation between algorithm tests and performance. Can't expect her to seriously entertain disagreement as long as the current model is profitable for her.

Google is no more a proof of the value of algorithm tests than Github proves the value of manager-free organizations.

I was a bit horrified at the acquisition coaching comment. I did not realize that happened but of course it makes sense. Can't manage an acquihire if your devs can't pass the algorithm tests at the big acquirers. Shame.

Your assumptions are false.

It is actually more profitable for me if I say that these algorithm tests are BS and completely study-able, and even the worst engineer can pass them. That easily translates into "here! buy my book and even YOU can get a job at Google!"

It's actually a much harder sell when, really, it's more like studying helps someone perform better, but only to an extent.

Oh, and the acquirers encourage studying and prep, just as most of the top tech companies do for their normal dev (and non-dev) candidates.

To be clear: my experience is that the algorithm interviews, when done properly, work reasonably well to identify intelligence/problem solving and coding skills. Those are more important at some places than others. They can work well for certain places -- but not at all. I do not think that all companies should use this process. It's not right for all places, but it's reasonably good for some.

As for Google being proof of the value of algorithm test: I think you're pulling that from a twitter conversation very much out of context.

Context: Some people were arguing that the algorithm interviews offer zero value - that you'd be at least as well off, if not better off, hiring at random.

If they truly believe that (and they appeared to be sticking to this argument), then it's absolutely relevant that not just Google, but basically all the top tech companies, use this hiring process. Could a randomly selected group of engineers build the technology at companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc? I suppose that's what they must believe, and I find that pretty absurd.

If they had argued that these interviews sort of work, but aren't nearly as good as some other interview processes, then you're right that the company about Google and other companies wouldn't be relevant. And I also wouldn't have brought it up.

"To be clear: my experience is that the algorithm interviews, when done properly, work reasonably well to identify intelligence/problem solving and coding skills."

Given that there is no correlation between job performance and interview score, are you saying this based on your gut instinct, or do you have objective data somewhere?

My best estimation is that the Google interview process is just a glorified fizzbuzz presentation, and that the hiring decisions are more or less made by arbitrary factors, including the nebulous "culture fit".

While it may be amusing to work through the details of doing a merge sort on a linked list in 30 minutes, it's certainly not germaine to the quotidian experience of an SWE at Google.

>> Given that there is no correlation between job performance and interview score, are you saying this based on your gut instinct, or do you have objective data somewhere?

That's not a correct assumption. I suspect that you are referring to the (infamous) Google studies on this that were alleged to show this. The articles about this got many details wrong, and the study was fundamentally flawed. Remember: they only studied the people who did very well. That's like finding no link between exercise and health when you only study people who run regular marathons.

Merge sort on a linked list is a bad interview question, so I agree with you there. Good questions are problem that actually make you design a new algorithm.

It may be that the studies were flawed, and that the reporting was bad, but that flavor of study has been replicated in other venues besides Google. Given that, it essentially comes down to culture being the deciding factor in these interviews. Given the stark cultural skew at Google, it's possible that the pseudo-analytic SWE interview is actually masking systematic bias in the hiring process.

The question for Google is whether Page, Brin, Bak, Buchheit, and Dean passed an algorithm interview before building Google's core technologies. Hiring doctrine after the fact does not ensure a billion dollar company.

I disagree with your assertion that lambasting Google's hiring practices is an easy sell in the market. The last time I tried I was dismissed out of hand by a talent consultant.

> I disagree with your assertion that lambasting Google's hiring practices is an easy sell in the market. The last time I tried I was dismissed out of hand by a talent consultant.

That... wasn't my assertion at all.