Writing a B+ tree from memory and making sure your infrastructure isn't doing something stupid are fundamentally different skills. One requires that you regurgitate the contents of a text book on a white board, the other that you can engineer a solution. I wish them well on an interview set up for hiring the former; I try to hire the later.
> Writing a B+ tree from memory and making sure your infrastructure isn't doing something stupid are fundamentally different skills.
It's funny. You know it. I know it. Entire HN knows it. And yet _no_ interview follows any such common sense rules. Just go to a Google/FB interview and they ask you all sort of questions. It doesn't matter what you are interviewing for. In fact, in many cases they don't even tell you which group/team/project you will be assigned to. Since they will "assess" where you fit best.
At Google this just isn't true unless we are talking about new grads. After you pass the interviews, you have to do team matching, where you will have informal 2 way interviews with prospective teams. Only after you find a team that you like and that likes you can you get an offer, assuming your application is approved.
It's definitely not a case of sticking you in a team without your input. It's true that at the interview stage you won't know, but by the time you have an offer you know what team you'll be on.
I believe at Facebook you have even more freedom. You get to go to boot camp for 3 months and after that get to choose what team you want to be on. I haven't worked there so this is just based off what recruiters and friends have told me though so hopefully someone else can correct me or elaborate.
Thanks for the reply. I am talking about the interviewing stage. I have more than 10 years of engineering experience but the Google HR actually sent me a PDF of all the topics I should be well versed it. The booklet was basically my entire grad course and masters and more. I can confirm from more than 5 sources that this is the case with Google interviews.
You stated two things: the fact that Google asks algorithms questions and "Since they will "assess" where you fit best".
The GP was refuting the second of these things (the GP even quoted it) while you were defending the first statement.
BTW, I think that second point is a common misconception that deserves rebuttal because I think that until a five years ago or so Google wouldn't tell you which team you would join (or give you much choice) before deciding on an offer, even if experienced.
Lazy interviewers looking for magic shortcuts / lazy managers not mentoring/teaching/structuring how to dig into candidate ability to solve real, hairy problems quickly and get a window into candidate problem-solving thought-processes. Hiring by random "intuition" is both evidence-free and scatter-gun half-assery that results in wasting everyone's time by not attracting/selecting for great candidates.
