
Ask HN: Should I go through with a Google interview - anonymouse_1234
I&#x27;ve been asked to interview for a software engineer position at Google, and I&#x27;m on the fence as to proceeding.<p>I&#x27;ve got an excellent academic pedigree (including PhD from top British university), and a solid career that has been has focused on robust software engineering alongside engineering management and leadership - I was CTO of a startup with a reasonable number of folk, as well as a principal in a large organisation running a team that made over $100M. I presume this is why they contacted me (of course, I might just have been found in a sweep of LinkedIn).<p>However, my raw algorithmic skill has atrophied. My ability to build scalable, high quality software (and teams) is exponentially better than it was, but my ability to devise solutions to NP hard problems on a whiteboard is probably not what it used to be.<p>The material I&#x27;ve been sent to &quot;prepare&quot; with, and the information I can find online, suggests that a reasonable amount of the interview is basically going to be a &quot;coding olympiad&quot;. Essentially, &quot;Have you memorised a bunch of approaches to algorithmics, and can you recall them all under pressure?&quot;.<p>I&#x27;m currently inclined to cancel the interview, because honestly, I don&#x27;t think I can right now. I&#x27;m not really up for spending weeks of time &quot;revising&quot; as if I was an undergraduate again. Either:<p>1) They need people who can do this type of thing, in which case, I&#x27;m not interested in the job
2) They don&#x27;t need people to do this work, and ask it as some kind of bizarre ritual, in which case, I&#x27;m not interested in the job.
3) I&#x27;ve misunderstood the interview process (though when I asked the recruiter about the interview, she gave me some &quot;trial questions&quot; including &quot;What&#x27;s the complexity of Quicksort, best and worst case? When should you use merge sort&quot;, which suggests to me I&#x27;ve not).<p>Should I pull out now, or try and &quot;prepare&quot;?
======
mmt
> The material I've been sent to "prepare" with

This is likely the most telling. Asking you to prepare in a specific way [1]
is both a red flag and can reasonably be used to make assumptions about the
job itself, if not the culture.

Recently, after a positive technical phone interview, the followup call with
the recruiter included strong encouragement that I study the specific
(configuration management/deployment) tools they were using, prior to my in-
person interview, as I had admitted I had no exposure to them, despite having
used other ones. Shortly after that call, I e-mailed a rejection.

The first problem I had was that such a request disrespects a candidate's
time. Even between jobs (and even for a new grad before a first job), time
isn't necessarily valueless. Viewed more cynically, they were trying to get me
to start training up on their specific tool choices in advance of paying me.

The second, more important problem, is that it implied a desire to hire for
proficiency with specific tools rather than overall ability, something I
personally consider an anti-pattern, especially for startups (and especially
since I consider myself a generalist within my profession). I'd much rather
hold out for a company that subscribes to some variant of "Hire for {Attitude,
Fit, Talent, Ability}, Train for Skill".

> Should I pull out now, or try and "prepare"?

All that said, this is a false dichotomy.

If the interview itself isn't a huge imposition, you could go without
"preparing". See if you can steer the discussion and even whiteboarding to
something that's relevant to you. If nothing else, it's a way to get in a
_real_ practice interview, something that can be surprisingly helpful if one
hasn't been interviewing in years.

You can always cut it short, too, if it looks like it's truly going to be a
waste of everyone's time to continue. Look up in advance some polite ways of
doing this.

[1] as opposed to something along the lines of "please research what's
important to you about us" which might seem insulting to have to say out loud
but otherwise seems harmless, IMO

------
daly
Google is a "ball pit" company, like a children's restaurant. As a
professional, you don't take clients to restaurants that feature ball pits. As
a professional, don't interview with companies that play the "whiteboard"
child's interview game.

That said, if you need the job, take the interview.

~~~
hhs19832
What does ballpit mean in this context? By your definition, what does it mean
to say Google has a "ballpit"?

If I wanted to determine technical competency in addition to a verbal
interview, why wouldn't I use a whiteboard?

Why wouldn't I take my client to a restaurant with ballpits? What if they have
children and can't find a babysitter?

~~~
daly
Microsoft made clever interview questions popular, such as "How many pingpong
balls can a tractor-trailer hold?". The justification was that it revealed the
way you thought. Google whiteboard interviews use the same justification.

There are two things to note here. First, there is no evidence that these
tests reveal anything. I'd be happy to see a published, peer-reviewed study in
a psychology journal showing just what you can learn about thought patterns in
a standup whiteboard interview. Second, Google's head of HR (sorry, I don't
remember the pretentious name they actually use) has said that their interview
technique does not work.

Having been through this game I'll give you some advice. Get a book on
algorithms and memorize the worst case order of each algorithm. Also memorize
the algorithm with the best behavior. You'll have whiteboard interviews with
people who just graduated and their last course was on algorithms. It is the
institutional version of frat-house hazing.

If they want to determine technical competency perhaps they might ask for
github code authored by the person. Or perhaps they could read the resume
(google interviewers don't seem to do that) and ask them details about topics
related to the job you will be doing.... oh, wait... the google interviewers
don't know what job you are interviewing for, nor who you might be working
for, or even what you might be doing. It doesn't matter. The interview isn't
about you at all.

The upside is that you might get a free google t-shirt.

~~~
hhs19832
Thanks, this is helpful and informative.

------
hhs19832
You have a great question, but the answers given exhibit the wrong attitude.

The short answer is that the recruiter likely didn't know what they were doing
and that you belong in a principal or management role, not in an SWE role.

If correct, all this anxiety (and derogatory opinion about Google) is about
fitting yourself into the wrong shaped peg, created by a stressed out
recruiter who glanced at your profile for 30 seconds.

How about using these CTO skills (or just being an adult/professional or big
boy) and contacting them to say, "hey shouldn't my profile bring the most
value in a <principal or manager>" and "look at all my skills along these
lines, etc."?

------
rajacombinator
Do yourself and the industry a favor, tell them gfy.

