Google failures take umbrage

The Register carries a series of letters, that responded for calls for failed applicatants to Google to share their interview experiences.

Now, I’m no Human Resources expert by a mile, but some the replies to me just plain underline unsuitability for employment in any environment, let alone Google.

In most instances, the candidates show exceptional arrogance:

Candidate 2:

The technical guys really drilled down on what I know, and I had a brain lockup that day. Couldn’t do anything technical at all, could not explain how ssh works, could not explain how diffie-helman works, don’t even know how cross site scripting works. … I’m just surprised that the ONE onsite tech interview where my brain locked up counted so much

A brain fart on an interview costs little. But a brain fart at the helm of a company with a valuation of $100+ billion dollars?

And this guy thinks it would be no big deal?

When I was a kid they told us that when we went for jobs, 8/10 was no good - 10/10 was expected. Maybe this guy needs a little elementary education. And accept responsibility more.

Candidate 3:

They have a process which intentionally filters out people who are single minded and focused on a goal in favour of people who like to spread around and tinker with things. At some point in the process you end up in a room with gadgets and things. The room actually has either a CCTV camera or a double mirror (no idea what is the actual technical implementation). If you open your bag and read a book so that you do not lose concentraion at that point and ignore the shiny gadgets you are most likely going to fail the interview. If you tinker with the shiny trinkets around you, the likelihood that you will pass will vastly improve. Once again - no wander the pathological beta.

Anyone who’s read anything on Google know they shunt workers to dedicate time tinkering. They’ve made a very public point in their worth ethic that they want experimenters - people with a natural curiosity to see how things work, and then see if it can be used to Google’s advantage. If you’ve no interest in exploring your own creative curiosity, why the hell apply for a company where it’s required policy?

A friend once gave me a strange object for a pencil. I stared at it, used it, all the while trying to figure out how it worked. He then told me there was an idea called The Hundredth Monkey - that if you take a sample of monkeys and give them a tool, for every 99 that simply use it, 1 will try and figure out why the tool works. Just maybe Google wants to hire only Hundredth Monkeys. And this guy just didn’t fancy being one.

Candidate 4:

The interview may have had two brain cells but I’m not too sure. I had to correct the questions he was asking. Either he had no idea or the paper he was reading from had some very badly worded questions.

Alternatively, the candidate is incapable of working in a team and feels they have to impose themselves at every opportunitity. IMO, you never say “That’s wrong, I’m going to have to correct you”. Instead, better to ask to clarify the situation and ensure you actually understood the question, rather than presume the questioner has no understanding of what they are asking.

The whole attitude displayed here by the candidate does not suggest someone whom I’m want to work with, even as an employee, let alone as an employer.

Candidate 5:

I’m a 6-year US Army vet, and while quite proud of my service, I never had to fire a shot in anger - I was an “MI Weenie” - Military Intelligence Signals Analyst.

The interview was going swimmingly until I met up with one interviewer who was apparently anti-military. Using the Google “Do No Evil” mantra as a pretense, he asked me how many people I’d killed when I served. When I explained to him that I was MI, he then asked if I could estimate how many people were killed because of the intelligence I’d gathered. The implication was I was either an evil, efficient killer or an incompetent one - a real no-win situation.

I didn’t get the job, and with no explaination why. I’m fairly certain his negative comments took me out of the running. For awhile, I assumed Google was anti-military, but after getting some time and perspective on it, it’s possible it was just a personal thing - one person’s bias.

Come on, this sounds like the candidate was asked to validate their previous position in the military, and the guy took umbrage.

It’s typical interview technique to try and challenge the interviewee - really underline the question of that that particular person deserves the job. It’s not about bias, it’s a combination of attitude and justification. And the guy felt like he could offer neither, so instead blames Google for anti-war bias?

Anyway, obviously I’m very inexperienced in HR matters, so if I’ve misunderstood anything here, feel free to correct me. :)