Yes, I was confused because that's how your comment starts out - it sounds like you're looking at this reputation like it's a thing in the past. Then you go on to say you'd never apply because you "know exactly how that process would go down." Which sounds like something you're thinking now and even in the future. I'm getting downvotes so maybe this makes no sense to anyone else but I don't see why you'd say "it's a shame" they've ruined their reputation in the past and then go on to say that you're sure things are going to be the same now and in the future.

By the way, since I'm getting the downvotes already anyways, I might as well say that you sound a little salty. I'm sure no one bases hiring decisions entirely on what university you went to.

Furthermore, all of the news articles we read love emphasizing the weird questions you might get once in a blue moon, the quirky perks you get for working there, etc. but in reality I doubt the interviews and work experience are much different from any other company (I asked my interviewers about this as well). Just some food for thought before you go accusing them of having "developed an overwhelming reputation" - a lot of this is the result of media hype, not their practices per se. Even though I agree that being employed at Google is probably overhyped, there's no need to be so antagonistic to the company for it.

To be clear, I'm just not sure what it's like there now. Maybe it's still bad, maybe it's improved a lot. Probably it's a bit of both, depending on who you encounter.

My point is that even if they have improved (maybe they have!), their past reputation makes me reticent to even bother seeing if they have.

> I'm sure no one bases hiring decisions entirely on what university you went to.

Former Google managers have explicitly told me that this filter is used for some positions at the resume screening level.

Sorry if I sounded salty. I have a great job and probably wouldn't work at Google even if they offered—just trying to frame the common perspective.