"On the job, the goal is to solve problems and get things done using any tool at your disposal. At the interview, the goal is to demonstrate why they should hire you instead of one of the other candidates who also have access to Google... A job interview is a competition, not a pass-fail test"
As for the comment that I am going to assume all kinds of things. Of course I am and so will other managers. We are all human and make assumptions all the time, often subconsciously. My point was just that it is in the candidate's best interest to recognize what you may be communicating by deferring to Google.
Getting mad about it doesn't help you get the job, so there is no sense in that. The intent of the article was to HELP candidates put their best foot forward with the benefit of some inside information from the other side of the interview table.
Yes, that's what it really means - "all else being equal during competition, remembering things will get you ahead".
The problem I have with you article is that all else is not equal. This could only work if you have an excess of qualified engineers. I have tons of anecdotal data about severe draught of qualified engieneers and none on the surplus, across Microsoft, Google, Amazon and funded Seattle startups. I am yet to see any data on actual competition, so your position does not pass the "inituition" test for me.
Are things that much different in the valley? It can't be, some of my data comes from people getting offers to move to the Valley.
>As for the comment that I am going to assume all kinds of things. Of course I am and so will other managers.
I think you are projecting.
All else being equal it's better to know the answer than to have to look it up. Also, the author of the article is going to assume all kinds of things about you