>sounds like discrimination and should be illegal

IME the "unique backgrounds" are "doesn't have a CS degree or a couple years of experience at a big software shop".

"Unique Backgrounds" meant women or lgtb or non-asian non-white. They often came from top schools, so that didn't really matter. It is way easier to get into Google via this program so some lied about being gay to get in.

the fact that this programs exist in the first place is a problem. how is it fair to have different interview processes for certain groups of people? it also results in underpaying these people and making it difficult for them to leave.

That's generally not what I've seen. It's generally just the same sorts of folks from top schools.

yep, discrimination

You could at least explain how it’s unfair to pay less qualified applicants less money?

It's bold to assume that the Google interview process accepts all qualified applicants.

bold? as long as there is no discrimination going on they can do what they want. the problem is, there is plenty of discrimination going on. maybe you don’t care because you work there. good for you. sooner or later, it will matter to you.

Discrimination against all but protected classes (eg race, religion, et c) is not only legal but standard practice; when hiring SWEs you want to discriminate against the inexperienced, those bad at code, et c.

the point here is that not everyone goes through the same recruiting process because of these programs. also, coding interviews do not test if you are a good software engineer or computer scientist. they test how well you memorized optimal solutions to problems and how quickly you can reproduce them. they also discriminate against those with anxiety or other mental issues or those who have not recently graduated. and they do not test many important skills besides writing code.

> the problem is, there is plenty of discrimination going on.

Try "the interview process is bad and has low recall."

> sooner or later, it will matter to you.

It already matters to me.

it is unfair to require leetcode bullshit interviews from candidates who apply for a job via the normal route but at the same time have programs in place where people can enter some kind of internship or training program via which they can be hired into similar positions without going through the exact same interview process. in fact, it is illegal.

>sounds like discrimination

discrimination can either be legal or illegal. google legally discriminates by giving offers to those who get the hiring committee's approval. i think getting the hiring committee's approval is a form of legal discrimination.

> discrimination can either be legal or illegal

Right, every nonrandom decision is discrimination, but in the US private discrimination is generally legal unless it effects a protected category; because of the rational basis test, in the US, public dsicrimination is generally invalid unless it meets some bar of justification, but unless a particularly protected basis of discrimination is involved or a particularly important right impinged, the bar for validity is very low (a rational relation to a legitimate government function.)

if you know about it, why don’t you do something about it?