I used to dream about working at Google until I interviewed with them. I got dragged along for months and largely ignored between interviews. The interviews themselves were impersonal and non interactive. They gave the impression that I should just shut up and write code in front of them and when I asked clarifying questions I barely got anything in response.
The experience was long and the recruiters were great but I definitely didn't feel like interviewers listened to what I had to say. Like I'd talk about past work, hostile managers, waiting 4 months for an admin to install software that was blocking a project. Then the Googler would ask something idiotic like, "tell me about a time you rallied your team to meet a strict deadline."
All I could think was, "I just explained how I'm out here waiting 4 months for software. Nobody is rallying shit. There aren't strict deadlines. Nobody cares. That's why I'm here interviewing."
Amazon was the same way. All they were asking was like, "Why didn't you adapt and overcome this obstacle? blah blah" What!? This is defense software numb nuts- I don't have privileges.
It seems that they ask great questions for engineers who already come from that culture.
FWIW, I've used this as my answer to that exact question. "Despite repeated requests and proactive discussions, all attempts to stem the <BAD THING HERE> were negated by management".
But yeah, in defense and a few other industries, it's really your job to shut up and work.
I think this is a by-product of some internal dynamics. A lot of teams push staff really hard to be interview trained because they see it as a funnel to get applicants for your team. I assume they think the interviewee will tell the recruiter "oh, I heard about foo team, are there any openings there?". This has gotten worse since perf started having a citizenship component. The easiest way to get citizenship points is to interview.
The worst was when you got picked for G&L interviews (Googliness and Leadership). Nobody defines those terms, so nobody knows how to interview for them. They give us a few sample questions for people at each level, so most people just blindly pick one or two and go with those. "Tell me about a time you rallied..." is definitely on that list.
Let's be honest, for most employees interviewing was a chore, and not one that they could see the outcomes of. So of course the experiences are going to drag out and be monotonous and robotic.
I've had mixed experiences with their recruiters, and their interviewers. Some recruiters were on the ball and pushed things forward; others just disappeared. Some interviewers were great, clearly wanted it to be a collaborative thing, so were responsive to the questions I asked and helpful in rubber ducking as I talked through it (I'm thinking here especially of an algorithm session)...others clearly didn't care, were cold and didn't seek to answer anything in a way I could move forward (here I'm thinking of a system design session; exactly where you -need- answers to scope anything out).
I happily never particularly cared one way or the other about working for Google (and only once or twice did their recruiters reach out/get back to me when I was actually looking; I am sufficiently ambivalent that most of the times their recruiters have reached out have been "I'm not currently looking"), but their cachet has only dropped since I started my career, and their remote-as-second-class-citizen approach currently makes it a non-starter for me. I'm not going back to the office.
Wow, this is the complete opposite of my experience interviewing there. The recruiter typically got back to me the same day, or the next day at the latest. My interviews, system design in particular, were very, very, very interactive (and fun!).
This is very similar to my experience. TBH, being able to not talk through what I’m coding the _whole_ time, unlike what it shown in the official “What to expect” Google videos, was a relief. Unfortunately, that change in expectation sort of threw me off; there became uncertainty in what was expected of me. This uncertainty hindered my creative juices while problem-solving but nowhere near as bad as the interview prior, which I won’t go into since I am paranoid about the interviewer seeing this comment :)
Had a similar experience. The recruiting part of the process went pretty smoothly, until I got to the onsite. Had 5 on-site interviews (excluding lunch), all exactly the same format: walk in the room where my interviewer is waiting with a question written on the white board, they say "hello" to me and I'm expected to read the question, clarify it a little bit and start coding. Not a single interviewer cared about my past experience or what kind of a person I am. I guess they're relying on the lunch interview for that signal? Anyway I ended up getting rejected and the feedback was that I need to practice my algorithms more. (All the questions were slight variations on popular leetcode questions)
When interviewing we are instructed to write up the interview question and answer and score on a rubric with citations into the interview notes. These notes then go to the hiring committee who makes the decision without knowing the human side at all. I think the point is something like this
where the hiring committee is intentionally blinded. There just isn't anywhere in the notes to record "what kind of a person you are". There is a separate interview which tries to capture that, but the rest of this is in the name of avoiding bias, and maybe being more lenient with someone who went to the same school as you, or makes you laugh or whatever.
that reasoning is understandable actually. Given Google's success, maybe this is the right way of approaching the hiring process over the long term at the scale of tens of thousands of employees. However, that kind of culture is just not for me. I ended up getting hired at a small startup working on cutting edge technology and have really enjoyed my time here. So in a way, it turned out well for both me and Google.
>> and the feedback was that I need to practice my algorithms more.
I'm optimistic I will live long enough to see the death of this type of interview. Great gate-keeper question, easy to mark, next to zero signalling value as to ability to problem solve or program. Sigh...
I've done a live on-site and a virtual on-site during COVID.
I was mostly stationary during the live on-site. I was taken to a room and the interviewers came to me. Some chit-chat, then given the problem, then working on the problem. A break for lunch, then I was taken to a room near where the first was for the rest of my interviews. Much the same deal. I stayed in the room while the interviewers cycled through. I was told that the lunch portion wasn't part of the interview and the person escorting me around didn't have any influence on the hiring decision. That may or may not be true, but it is what they told me.
About a week after, I was informed of my rejection. I'm fairly sure I know one interview I particularly bombed. The question involved something I had done before, but a while ago and I floundered a bit trying to recall all the bits and bobs of the syntax and structure. The other four I felt could go either way.
During the virtual on-site, it was just being passed off to various Google Meet rooms. I think I wrote code in a shared Google Doc. I felt ok in most of them. None particularly stuck out. A few days after the interview, I was informed I was being passed to the hiring committee. And then a few days after that, I was informed the hiring committee passed on me.
All the questions I got were vaguely LeetCode-ish. They were all of the template: Here's a vague problem with loose requirements. I'd ask some questions about particulars, "Can I assume this?", "Is this true for all?", "Is this sorted?", "Can I go to the bathroom?" "No, now I really have to go, last time was to avoid answering a question" etc. Then I'd write up a solution in my language of choice, trying to explain why I was doing what I was going while doing it. Just stream of conscious style stuff. Occasionally, I'd get comments or questions as I talked. Stuff about assumptions I was making or why I was trying this method. Then if there was time and they were satisfied with my solution, they'd ask me to essentially scale it up. "Ok, that works when you can hold the dataset in memory, but what if the dataset was three bazillion petabytes?"
I personally enjoy puzzles and challenges, so I found the process fun even though the fact that it is an interview makes it a little more. But since I have also had a job both times I interviewed, the stakes are a bit lower for me, which also helps.
