Do you understand why I failed the interview? That's absurd. How can you understand if I've not even given all the details? Your process is somehow bullet-proof and guaranteed to be followed? Probably because that's the assumption Google is predicated on. It couldn't have happened, so it didn't. I mean, logically, that's true.
> And I have no idea what you mean by the "tools" and "how to operate them" being false and failing.
I mean I consider my skill-set (what they're buying from me) to be my theoretical / intellectual ability, in addition to the practical activities I take when using the computer to achieve my job (using a mouse, keyboard, git, c++, testing). The interviewer mentioned they are looking for generalist programmers who don't consider their tool-set (git, windows, whatever) to be part of their skill-set. While I am quite general, I consider it a plus that I know such a wide range of different technologies. It was my question which prompted this, I asked about this very thing since I know it's a sore spot at Google, knowing a few Google employees and some Google coops. I believe this is the reason I failed, the interview completely changed his tone at this point.
In any case, the interview didn't test anything I would have done on the job, or my ability to do such things. It also didn't even test my intelligence independently of my preparedness, since there's so much preparatory material available, though it did eliminate people with lower intelligence who didn't prepare.
I failed the interview because of a number of reasons, but I definitely solved the problem. The typical process wasn't followed as this was right as COVID hit. So maybe that had some effect as well, this was the second phone interview with a new person (the first one I completed the problem, but there was a glitch and the call dropped and we couldn't recover for some time), and I've been ignoring the recruiter for years. I think I didn't really want to work for Google in the first place, so that probably also came through. I'm a big proponent of privacy and against Google's advertising business model.
I think based on the interview process I'm no longer considering Google anymore, despite still having another interview in six months. I will probably inform the Google recruiter in the future. It's just a waste of my time to prepare for such a silly test. When the main book to get the test is a book about how to cheat it and appear better than you are, it shows that the test is completely broken. Maybe a company the size of Google should hire people for short internships where they code throw-away prototypical problems and do some paid work. Maybe on a problem that takes some time and planning. I'd do that, even today. I think Google has lost most of the individuals who actually have an impact in this industry beyond search.
Maybe that's why the process won't change, Google isn't selecting for some traits which are commonly sought after.
> And I have no idea what you mean by the "tools" and "how to operate them" being false and failing.
I mean I consider my skill-set (what they're buying from me) to be my theoretical / intellectual ability, in addition to the practical activities I take when using the computer to achieve my job (using a mouse, keyboard, git, c++, testing). The interviewer mentioned they are looking for generalist programmers who don't consider their tool-set (git, windows, whatever) to be part of their skill-set. While I am quite general, I consider it a plus that I know such a wide range of different technologies. It was my question which prompted this, I asked about this very thing since I know it's a sore spot at Google, knowing a few Google employees and some Google coops. I believe this is the reason I failed, the interview completely changed his tone at this point.
In any case, the interview didn't test anything I would have done on the job, or my ability to do such things. It also didn't even test my intelligence independently of my preparedness, since there's so much preparatory material available, though it did eliminate people with lower intelligence who didn't prepare.
I failed the interview because of a number of reasons, but I definitely solved the problem. The typical process wasn't followed as this was right as COVID hit. So maybe that had some effect as well, this was the second phone interview with a new person (the first one I completed the problem, but there was a glitch and the call dropped and we couldn't recover for some time), and I've been ignoring the recruiter for years. I think I didn't really want to work for Google in the first place, so that probably also came through. I'm a big proponent of privacy and against Google's advertising business model.
I think based on the interview process I'm no longer considering Google anymore, despite still having another interview in six months. I will probably inform the Google recruiter in the future. It's just a waste of my time to prepare for such a silly test. When the main book to get the test is a book about how to cheat it and appear better than you are, it shows that the test is completely broken. Maybe a company the size of Google should hire people for short internships where they code throw-away prototypical problems and do some paid work. Maybe on a problem that takes some time and planning. I'd do that, even today. I think Google has lost most of the individuals who actually have an impact in this industry beyond search.
Maybe that's why the process won't change, Google isn't selecting for some traits which are commonly sought after.