[HN Gopher] Google's "Director of Engineering" Hiring Test
___________________________________________________________________
Google's "Director of Engineering" Hiring Test
Author : iamthemalto
Score : 71 points
Date : 2022-01-01 16:54 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.gwan.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.gwan.com)
| rurban wrote:
| This exchange happened around 2016 or so, if I remember
| correctly. Already posted here a couple of times.
|
| And it happened to me also. Those recruiters were hilarious, you
| cannot make that up. I got 8 of 10 by luck, but refused a 2nd
| exchange with those bots.
| sebastien_b wrote:
| Thanks for this - now I know what link to reply with for
| recruiters that keep spamming me as if I'd be interested in
| working at whatever company they're spamming me for.
| mmacvicarprett wrote:
| Not surprising, the candidate did fail at acknowledge who the
| interviewer was to adapt their answers. It was a recruiter
| reading answers from a sheet, the simpler you keep it the highest
| the chance of passing the stupid test.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| Not everyone wants to work at a place that needs you to dumb
| things down just to get your foot in the door as a _Director of
| Engineering_
| lucasyvas wrote:
| Send them an invoice for your wasted time.
| lokar wrote:
| The reason for this is that resume review is really ineffective
| as a screen. You end up having engineers wasting time on
| technical interviews that are clearly a pass in the first 10m
| (but you keep going for 45 to stay professional)
|
| IMO, a better approach now are basic on line code screens
| designed to take 15m for a qualified candidate. The goal of which
| is to show you are serious about the tech stuff and give people a
| way to bow out gracefully.
| faangiq wrote:
| Resume screening is very effective when done by someone who is
| intelligent. The tech industry refuses to take hiring seriously
| and apply such people to the problem.
| lokar wrote:
| I've read many resumes that seem solid. Then the candidate
| knows almost nothing. They just lie on the resumes.
|
| I've also talked to people with terrible resumes who turn out
| to be great. They are just bad at resumes.
| dekhn wrote:
| These are the prescreen questions that were used for senior SRE.
| It's not a hiring test- this person didn't even get to the actual
| hiring interviews (which would have asked you, for example, to
| implement quicksort in code on a whiteboard).
|
| The recruiter-screeners in this case don't know anything, they're
| just looking for you to answer some questions against a table of
| "right answers", and they wouldn't know it if you answered in a
| way that was technically correct, but not in the answer key.
|
| The reasoning behind this, sadly, is that Google thinks it tuned
| its hiring questions to reduce the rate of false positives-
| hiring an unqualified person into a role- at the expense of false
| negatives (not hiring a qualified person). Eventually, I stopped
| referring people to Google as the process was quite capricious. I
| told anybody who wanted to apply to read everything online about
| the process, memorize CLR and leetcode, and then tell the
| interviewers what they wanted to hear.
| fragmede wrote:
| What is CLR in this context? Common Language Runtime
| (Microsoft's .NET VM) doesn't seem applicable.
| sushid wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Algorithms
| [deleted]
| mbroncano wrote:
| I had a similar experience a few years ago. Although I soon
| realized what the deal was, and what the expectations of the
| screener were (so I could adjust and 'pass'), it discouraged me
| from moving forward.
|
| It seems nowadays the process is much more reasonable, but Google
| is still far behind other FAANG companies in regard to their
| interviewing process, in my opinion.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-01 23:03 UTC)