Volume. Huge volume.

Google has a completely broken interview process, to the point where they pretty much brag about how ridiculous their false negative rate is, but they make up for it on volume. When people will throw themselves at you two or three times in hope of getting that lucky set of algorithm wankery questions that they can answer, then you will keep interviewing like that.

I'm not so certain that Google's process is more broken than anyone else's. The thing the giant companies have going for them is that they tend to be more consistent, so at least you can get a good sense of what they'll ask, how to prepare, and how they're measuring you.

With small companies, it often comes down to "were you charming enough?" They won't admit it, but it's a clear subconscious bias.

Actually, I suspect Google makes up for it on acquisitions. When I was there that's how most people got into the company.

How do you define broken? It definitely sounds like it's working for Google so going by the "is the process working for the employer" definition it isn't broken.

>> in hope of getting that lucky set of algorithm wankery questions that they can answer

If true, hiring based on luck seems broken to me. Like the joke of the hiring manager throwing away half the resumes and not hiring "unlucky" people.

Definitely a back door, friends on the inside to bypass the BS.