False, they hired me.

There is a huge element of randomness in google's hiring process. So much of it depends on whether you and your interviewers were having a bad day that day. I suppose being hired there means you're above some minimum bar of competence, but I don't think being rejected means anything other than you got unlucky.

What a weird post.

> The minor point I want to get across here is that if someone has Google (or any other ${BigTechCo}) on their résumé then it’s something to be interested in but you should also be asking about what led to that

I mean thats great a great goal for interviewers, but the idea that because google was on your resume that what came before must have been interesting seems...self aggrandizing? I'm not sure exactly, but it definitely doesn't follow. New grad hires alone throw a wrench in the works, but so does the Google interview reputation for caring less about the resume than coding questions.

What’s the argument and point of this? Can someone clarify?

I know plenty of losers that were hired by Google, Amazon, Facebook, Netflix, etc.

I don't actually know of one golden company that has never hired a dud.

Not one.

What's the actual point of this post, other than a click-bait title?

This article adds no signal to my world view except that there is an employee at google who thinks its professional to 'fail the fuck' out of me.

He certainly sounds like a loser, while trying to say Google only hires winners.

There's a problem with society when children are blogging that they'll, "fail the fuck" out of you while working at Google. I think I'll pass on applying if I'll have to with him.

All he says his with poor communication and social skills is that people with unrelated but impressive backgrounds work alongside him. Pat yourself on the back. We now know it's possible to work at Google but have a brain the size of a pea.

This article is surprisingly aggressive considering it doesn't really say anything other than "tests as interviews can cause you to hire non-traditional pedigrees."

Also, some of the worst people I ever worked with came from Google. The process seems to filter for test-taking rather than pragmatism or work ethic. But that's a whole other issue.

This isn't a good article, but it's not off-topic, and flags aren't downvotes. I vouched it.

Not a fan of googles hiring process. I interviewed in 2015 and never got past the phone screen. I was given a contrived programming problem, which I solved and explained runtime complexity.

The interviewer called me for the screen about 15 minutes late and then he was upset with me because the google doc link I was given to write code was not the one he was opening. Miscommunication on his end.

He struggled to speak English, which I’m fine with, but his inability to communicate made him get more and more frustrated.

The recruiter never called back. Even if they weren’t going to move forward, a simple courtesy call wouldn’t have been so terrible.

This interview was for an entry level engineer. In less than 4 years, I’m a senior engineer now at another top tier tech company. I don’t think my interviewing skills or coding skills were the problem.

Googles recruiting process is half assed.