Google's recruiting seems like it must be at least partially the responsibility of short-tenure contractors. Every time I've dealt with people from their recruiting department, even the very nice ones seemed forgetful, inattentive and poor at communication. The actual Google employees who do the interviewing are on average very bright, good at actively interviewing candidates (instead of just rattling off questions), and open to answering questions, even if a couple of them were clearly inexperienced and uninterested in doing interviews.
I'd say the actual experience of the interview can be a good thing, but the process as a whole is a huge waste of the candidate's time - especially if you don't fit the stereotypical niche of what a Google employee is (4+ years of CS education, thinks writing linked lists and trees is exciting, etc. etc.) Their decision to intentionally avoid giving any feedback to candidates probably stops people from gaming the interview process, but it also makes it a net negative for candidates who don't meet the unstated criteria Google is after - criteria that could often be screened for before a candidate ever sets foot on campus. They refuse to interview candidates for a position or a role beyond generalizations like 'software engineer', despite the huge breadth and depth of problems solved at Google - if you're lucky they'll quiz you on the stuff you actually know, but most likely they won't, and the questions will be very mundane. This despite the fact that actual hiring choices ARE partitioned to some degree (as much as they seem to want to pretend they aren't).
Most of the time interviewing with a good company is a 'why not' scenario: The only thing you have to lose is some time, and you'll learn some useful things from most interview experiences (even if occasionally the only thing you learn is 'this company is awful'). Google's interview process feels precisely engineered to avoid letting candidates learn anything whatsoever.
Companies like Microsoft or Amazon or Zynga all at least have a pretense of evaluating a candidate's specific strengths and weaknesses to figure out whether they're useful - if you're a compiler engineer MS will probably have some Visual Studio/DevDiv people grill you with compiler engineering questions, if you're a games dev Amazon will have you talk to people from their games department, and if you're a database guy Zynga isn't going to ask you game design questions. For Google interviews it seems entirely one-size-fits-all, despite the fact that they have core products that obviously depend on niche knowledge and experience.
> Google's recruiting seems like it must be at least partially the responsibility of short-tenure contractors. Every time I've dealt with people from their recruiting department, even the very nice ones seemed forgetful, inattentive and poor at communication.
I had a Google recruiter contact me once when I was actively looking for a job. Her initial email was just the basic, "we saw your CV and thought your skills in XYZ would be a good fit. Would you be interested in setting up an interview?"
I replied within about 15 minutes to tell her I was interested. My next contact with her was almost five months later, and incredibly, she just said, "Sorry for the delay, I've been really busy. Are you free on Thursday?" At that point I kindly told her I had already accepted an offer somewhere else. I wanted to tell her the new company had treated me well over the ensuing years, that I had worked hard and advanced to a respectable middle management position, retired, and was currently traveling the world with my grandkids, but I thought that might have been a bit precious.
Is this something that may be unique to the bay area though?
I went through several rounds of interviews with a couple different startups, and two of them were non-responsive to the point it was annoying. I can understand startups being less "professional", but some of them treat you more like a number than some of the bigger corporates I've worked for.
>>> but it also makes it a net negative for candidates who don't meet the unstated criteria Google is after - criteria that could often be screened for before a candidate ever sets foot on campus.
The crazy thing is they don't give feedback, then call back in a few months and ask if you want to interview again for the same position like the OP said. Talk about completely confusing people. . .
This is not uncommon. I had the same experience with a certain well known communications company in SF. After a bungled interview (my fault, not theirs), the same recruiter contacts me again no less than a month later. By that point I had accepted a position elsewhere, but it was certainly a mixed signal bag.
Yep. You'd think they'd consult their own database on whether it's worth talking to a candidate (or whether the candidate is excluded from interviewing due to their lockout rules...) but their recruiters don't, which is part of what makes me think they must be contractors.
I'd say the actual experience of the interview can be a good thing, but the process as a whole is a huge waste of the candidate's time - especially if you don't fit the stereotypical niche of what a Google employee is (4+ years of CS education, thinks writing linked lists and trees is exciting, etc. etc.) Their decision to intentionally avoid giving any feedback to candidates probably stops people from gaming the interview process, but it also makes it a net negative for candidates who don't meet the unstated criteria Google is after - criteria that could often be screened for before a candidate ever sets foot on campus. They refuse to interview candidates for a position or a role beyond generalizations like 'software engineer', despite the huge breadth and depth of problems solved at Google - if you're lucky they'll quiz you on the stuff you actually know, but most likely they won't, and the questions will be very mundane. This despite the fact that actual hiring choices ARE partitioned to some degree (as much as they seem to want to pretend they aren't).
Most of the time interviewing with a good company is a 'why not' scenario: The only thing you have to lose is some time, and you'll learn some useful things from most interview experiences (even if occasionally the only thing you learn is 'this company is awful'). Google's interview process feels precisely engineered to avoid letting candidates learn anything whatsoever.
Companies like Microsoft or Amazon or Zynga all at least have a pretense of evaluating a candidate's specific strengths and weaknesses to figure out whether they're useful - if you're a compiler engineer MS will probably have some Visual Studio/DevDiv people grill you with compiler engineering questions, if you're a games dev Amazon will have you talk to people from their games department, and if you're a database guy Zynga isn't going to ask you game design questions. For Google interviews it seems entirely one-size-fits-all, despite the fact that they have core products that obviously depend on niche knowledge and experience.