News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit. Parent comment

Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by howawaygoog on Thursday January 05, 2017 @12:31PM (#13329223)
yes, that somehow makes me feel better (rather than almost all passed but me), I guess in the media they all focus so much in the legendary Google interview that so few people pass, they forgot to mention the committee. My one bad taste of the experience was that one day (thankfully it could have been worse) I thought I had made it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by gohrt on Thursday January 05, 2017 @07:11PM (#13332726)
The committee is how you "pass" the interview. Only awful interview performances are rejected on interview scores alone, before committee. Committee reduces the set of interview scores into a single decision.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by jedmeyers on Monday January 09, 2017 @12:21AM (#13354203)
That's actually the reason I got confused with the original comment I replied to. The author said he 'passed' the interview and then got rejected by committee, and the only committee 'after' passing the interview is the VP/SVP review. In reality he did not actually passed the interview, he might have just gotten a relatively good feedback from the interviewers.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit by howawaygoog on Thursday January 05, 2017 @11:11PM (#13333863)
recruiter literally emailed me "congratulations, you passed the interviews", before committee so that's very confusing, what did I pass then, a low filter?
[ Parent | on HN ]