Are you judging this on their ability to invert a binary tree? People here are ranting about having a problem with interview practices not representing whether or not you are good at your job. That's presumably (IMO) why the tweet was posted.

It seems to me like creating and managing a repository of more than 4800 contributors is a much better signal of a candidates software engineering, communication, and human skills than a couple of people's opinion of a couple of hours of white boarding.

It's not that you're not _good_ at it, but you're not able to demonstrate under time constraints, lack of references, lack of iterative code/compiler/REPL feedback, and while being stared down by someone whose default mindset is "why am I wasting my time on this person?"

It's never 1 reason why you get rejected, it's the total score.

That depends on how far down the interview process you are. Often they'll cut you off at a phone interview if you stumble. Sometimes they'll cut in-person interviews short if they think you're not worth it. So, they don't always get a "total score" to judge against. It's often just summary judgement off subjective feelings.

well that is the interview. for you being good means to know how to invert a binary tree if you have access to a compiler and internet, but for Google it means to know it off the top of your head. they could let you have access to compiler and then make the questions much more difficult. which one is better? I don't know. first one takes less time at least.

Often they'll cut you off at a phone interview if you stumble

I'd guess that's because they have so many condidates to pick from.

Exactly. It's the Big City Dating Problem. There are so many people to pick from, nobody wants to compromise to build a relationship. Just leave at the slightest sign of something not being 100% what you want and on to the next one since there are 20,000 other acceptable people within walking distance.

if you have access to a compiler and internet

It's not exactly that, but you often don't realize how many micro-checks or micro-confirmations you do while programming. In the absence of any "is this okay so far?" feedback, you're left second guessing yourself and reading your solution redundantly to check for any errors your daily automation would catch immediately by default.

Also how do you know he didn't fail a great number of other things they evaluate?

Because in my personal experience - as both an interviewer and a hiring committee member - what you said is completely wrong.

> they don't count a lot of factors while rejecting a candidate, you make one > mistake on their particular set of questions, you are out.

Completely false. I have personally seen many people get hired despite doing poorly in an interview or making mistakes.

The hiring committee looks at all of the available information - resume, recommendations, and interview feedback when making a decision. There is no "one-thing" that will make or break a candidate.

> They don't even look at your resumes until all your 4 interviews are completed

I have no idea where you are getting this from. All interviewers receive the candidate's resume prior to the interview. I always review the resume's to get a sense of what the candidate has done so I can ask appropriate questions.

Then why don't they? I wouldn't consider "the best people in the world" those that can pass an advanced CS class.

I'm starting to realize why Google is absolutely terrible at any sort of customer-facing product.

Esteemed schools of music probably produce dozens of guitarists "better" (in any way you would measure it academically) than Jimmy Page or Jimi Hendrix per year who go on to a life of producing nothing of lasting worth.

I'll take the guy/girl who has actually proved they can produce something useful every time over someone who is "better" but hasn't.

It's the difference between an holistic view of talent, and an academic and rather narcissistic insistence on specific limited social signals that are believed to correlate with intelligence.

And this really matters in practical ways. A lot of talented devs will be reading this story and wondering if they really want to work for Google. Negative PR like this is incredibly damaging. Consider the opposite - if Google could say "Yes, the Homebrew guy works for us." How much value do you think that would have had?

Long term, the really smart and inventive people start to stay away. And then you get something that seems to be happening to Google already - declining product quality, a poorer user experience, and diminished reputation. You know - Google's record of hits recently hasn't been that great?

So anyone who thinks Google is fine because it still has thousands of applicants is missing the point. Instead of being the kind of place where Hendrix plays, it's in danger of becoming the kind of place where there are a lot of people with a lot of solid but uncreative technical chops, and no one is making cool and interesting music any more.