> If you don't get the job, it's not a signal regarding your quality as an engineer and you shouldn't interpret it as such (however tempting it may be to do so).

Of course "not getting a job" is a "signal regarding your quality as an engineer". We need to keep this toxic mindset out of tech and silicon valley. The idea that everyone is smart, special, and deserves a job at Google, is completely false. There are people here on HN that will never get a "top" software/machine learning/design job simply because they are bad at it. Telling them "it's not you, it's the company" will only doom their future even further as they will lose motivation to improve themselves because: "Hey, HN said I'm smart and a talented engineer."

To drive the point home to viewers reading this, some of you may have applied to Google via their website. You did not get a reply. After reading this original post and the GP, please do tell me how smart you are and why your 10x programmer skills didn't catch the eye of Google recruiters (or Facebook, Apple, or any hot startup).

I was rejected from Google when I first graduated from college. Now I work at NASA and I'm very thankful I didn't get that job.

Saying that the hiring process is flawed isn't the same thing as saying everyone is special and deserves a job there.

From my anecdotal experience, I felt that they focus too much on algorithms and give the same interview to every candidate regardless of their experience or desired job. I made it very clear I wanted to work in embedded systems and write code for microcontrollers and they asked me questions about graph theory. Algorithms are not everything, especially for a company with such diversified technology opportunities. If I'm working on search, then sure. But embedded software? Can't they take the time to focus the interview even the slightest bit?

Not a big deal though. I know they have an endless supply of candidates and thankfully we as software engineers have a pretty good selection of places to work.

> I made it very clear I wanted to work in embedded systems and write code for microcontrollers and they asked me questions about graph theory. Algorithms are not everything, especially for a company with such diversified technology opportunities. If I'm working on search, then sure. But embedded software? Can't they take the time to focus the interview even the slightest bit?

I'm not a Googler, but from what I hear, moving between teams within Google takes less effort than most places, so that might explain why Google tends to interview for a generic "Google developer" rather than a "Embedded developer" position. Who knows, you might progress from initially working on the Google home firmware, then move on to optimizing the search client code and then possibly the search backend for Home itself.

I'm sure there are a lot of specialists at Google, but I suspect those are fewer than generalists with a solid handle on data structures and algorithms.

They are starting to take into account area of expertise, like in the article, they offered 2 Android-specific interviews as a different process. You'd still have some algorithms, but at least the other 2 would be for embedded if that was your area.

I believe what he was trying to say is that there is a large factor of chance involved with interviews.

Therefore it should not be a signal. Not getting a job because of an interview does not mean that you are not a qualified engineer.

It may mean that though. But it's not as if it's a 100m sprint where you can very easily measure results between Olympian and couch potato.

> https://www.amazon.com/The-Drunkards-Walk-Randomness-Rules/d...

There is a large factor of chance if you're a marginal candidate. But if you're very bad, there's no chance, and if you're very good, there's a very high chance.

Good at interviews? Then yes...

I failed my first interview and managed to get it on my second and so did a number of engineers at Google, Facebook .. you name it. The point is these interviews are intended for zero false positive and are very likely to result in false negatives. "Not a getting a job" alone doesn't state anything about your quality as an engineer and regarding catching recruiters eye, I know a ton of people who didn't get any responses for job applications in college, but a year or two at a good role made recruiters flock to them. My two cents would be there is always room for growth in software engineering and your work is the only signal that you should rely on. (coworkers, open source contributions etc). I wish there is a way to evaluate people solely based on their but unfortunately that utopia is far.

I used to work with someone who now works at Google. He was the sole lead for a project that he absolutely butchered the code before bailing out. I was left to clean up the mess which took many months and then continuing to finish the project to completion to the satisfaction of the end customer. I can certainly say he was not 10x programmer but perhaps he found some niche role there that he can contribute towards.

What a sad world we live in where you define your "quality" as your worthiness to serve someone else. So pitiable.

On the other hand some of us know we aren't top class engineers and don't actually care, I'm content with been good and careful over been 'Google' class.

Not that I'd want to work for Google anyway, I don't like them very much as a company.

you missed the context. OP was describing ways in which qualified candidates are rejected anyway because, in that particular time and place, there were even better candidates also interviewing, or that the teams that were hiring changed their priorities, or whatever.

I think what he was trying to say is that it's not an binary relationship​.