What is the general probability of getting an offer after your case has been submitted to the Hiring Committee at Google- as the final candidate? Do very few cases get rejected? On what grounds do rejections happen? Or do they just do an overall check of things to make sure the candidate is solid and there are no red flags that have not been addressed?
Yes that very few cases get rejected or that many do?
I believe most people fail the hiring committee. Their false negative rate is extremely and intentionally high
That should be taken care of before submitting the final candidates packet to the hiring committee. Why would the hiring team submit a case they know could potentially not get hired
It doesn't work like that. Why would you apply to a job if you know you could potentially be rejected.
I see what you mean. Just saying that most red flags would have been addressed at various stages of the interview process and a good candidate would be shortlisted to submit to hiring committee. Basically does probability of hiring increase a lot by the time the candidate's packet gets to HC and therefore much fewer rejections?
None of this is how the google hiring process works.
Can someone shed more light on how the process works please? I don't want to make assumptions
Every hiring req is sent to the committee with the feedback on how interview went and the hiring team's recommendation. Final decision is from the committee. And yes, many gets rejected.
Google is a big company. The process is variable depending on the role.
This is the most correct answer. It's variable depending on the role, and not every HC submission is the same.
I say many get rejected. Be aware, hiring committee is not a final step to determine, it is THE step to determine. All interviewers mainly just write feedback and HC makes the decision. (unless you screwed in early steps)
Except if feedback is shit, the recruiter may make an earlier step to reject and not even send to HC.
A hire packet looks like one score >=3.5 (one strong advocate) and three of the other four >= 3. But someone from Google will reply back here with "that's not true", followed by no corrected information. 🤔
That's not true, but here's the corrected information: Your interviewers each have a rubric, that assess stuff like coding, DS/algos, etc. Each of those items on the rubric is scored from 0-4, and your interviewer also leaves an overall recommendation (strong no hire, no hire, lean no hire, lean hire, hire, strong hire, N/A) and a short snippet explaining their rationale. Good interviewers also leave explanations for each one of their ratings. So you've got usually 4 of those going to the Hiring Committee. The Hiring Committee doesn't just check those final scores. It's not rare for them to hire someone who doesn't have a strong advocate and has middling scores across the board or (more commonly) for them to reject someone whose packet even looks like H/H/LH/LH or even SH/H/H/LH. That's because the Hiring Committee synthesizes all the inputs from the interviewers and goes back to the same rubric. So if you have a bunch of interviewers who all noticed the same weakness in your coding or your data structures & algorithms but individually decided to overlook it and recommend hire, the Hiring Committee will surface that and (since it happened over and over again) lower your score in that one part of the rubric since they see the clear pattern. Then it could escalate to them just rejecting you because you don't meet the coding bar. The Hiring Committee takes in a bunch of signals- ratings, recommendations, notes- from the interviewers to speed up the process, but the whole hiring packet at least gets skimmed. And they more or less assess you anew after skimming that packet. So the Hiring Committee can have unpredictable results if you look at things in terms of how well you did at each of your individual interviews rather than how well, across your interviews, you demonstrated the skills on the rubric (coding ability, data structures & algorithms, and the culture fit category that everyone does well in unless they're an asshole). source: experience on both interviewing and HC side of this system
@soros that's a great explanation, best one I've found. I just found out I was rejected by HC, and I think one reason may be because I stupidly messed up the time complexity 3x, in 3 interviews, despite getting the overall solution correct. That would have been noted by the interviewers and surfaced by the HC. The dumbest part is that I said the wrong time complexity for the same reason: I assumed since the solution was recursive, there was no way it would be o(n). But it was, all 3 times.
Offer Review, SVP Review etc after HC
Yes