←back to thread

1764 points fatihky | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
DannyBee ◴[] No.12701869[source]
FWIW: As a director of engineering for Google, who interviews other directors of engineering for Google, none of these are on or related to the "director of engineering" interview guidelines or sheets.

These are bog standard SWE-SRE questions (particularly, SRE) at some companies, so my guess is he was really being evaluated for a normal SWE-SRE position.

IE maybe he applied to a position labeled director of engineering, but they decided to interview him for a different level/job instead.

But it's super-strange even then (i've literally reviewed thousands of hiring packets, phone screens, etc, and this is ... out there. I'm not as familiar with SRE hiring practices, admittedly, though i've reviewed enough SRE candidates to know what kind of questions they ask).

As for the answers themselves, i always take "transcripts" of interviews (or anything else) with a grain of salt, as there are always two sides to every story.

Particularly, when one side presents something that makes the other side look like a blithering idiot, the likelihood it's 100% accurate is, historically, "not great".

replies(28): >>12702181 #>>12702207 #>>12702219 #>>12702265 #>>12702346 #>>12702460 #>>12702555 #>>12702650 #>>12702692 #>>12702698 #>>12702714 #>>12702888 #>>12702998 #>>12703034 #>>12703135 #>>12703156 #>>12703184 #>>12703554 #>>12703778 #>>12704177 #>>12704657 #>>12705201 #>>12705560 #>>12705982 #>>12706518 #>>12707763 #>>12708151 #>>12714459 #
potatolicious ◴[] No.12702692[source]
Disclaimer: I also work for Google, opinions are my own, etc etc.

> "i always take "transcripts" of interviews (or anything else) with a grain of salt"

I mean sure, a single instance of this might be overblown, exaggerated, or false in some way.

But there is an avalanche of reports like this, to the point where it's become widespread industry insider knowledge.

I enjoy working here, but the interviewing practices are such that I actively warn friends applying/being referred to temper their expectations of a repeatable/reliable process.

Most colleagues I've spoken to about this, including myself, have strong doubts we would have made the cut if we interviewed again - even though all are strong engineers with great perf records.

At what point do we start taking reports like these seriously? We don't have to accept every detail of the reporting as gospel, but there's clearly something here.

replies(5): >>12702806 #>>12702880 #>>12702895 #>>12703241 #>>12703541 #
erpellan ◴[] No.12703541[source]
I got pinged by Google about a year ago (after being narrowly rejected 9 years ago) asking if I'd be interested in re-applying. I said, "Sure, why not?".

I was immediately asked which department I wanted to join and why. I said, "Err, not sure, how about SRE?". To be told, "Oh, well that's not my area, let me ask them."

Shortly after that I got a curt message saying "Thank you for applying to Google. We have no vacancies that would suit you right now, thanks for applying, goodbye."

Somewhat bemused by the whole process (you contacted me, dude!), I went about my day.

replies(1): >>12704854 #
1. mikeleeorg ◴[] No.12704854{3}[source]
LOL. That's happened to me before too. And I've been on the other side, where I reach out to people to ask if they'd be interested in a role on my team.

However, I immediately tell them the role that I have, to avoid the whole, "We have no vacancies that would suit you right now" answer. Seems like their recruiters should have done that up front, to save you and themselves some time.