Google on-site ineptitude?

LinkedIn VBfE18
Apr 4 17 Comments

I recently did an on-site at Google, and am disappointed in a few things but unsure how to interpret them or proceed.

1. I was refused a schedule before, during, and after the interview. I had no idea who I was meeting with, for how long, when was lunch, or even when I could go home. I found this unsettling day of and am embarrassed to admit that it threw me off and affected my performance.

2. Related or not, I was down leveled from my target interview level, though team match is underway. I found this out only after specifically asking.

3. I was referred and applied for ML eng and ML research roles but have discovered I am proceeding as SWE. I also found this out only after specifically asking. In hindsight this also affected my performance as I am specifically an ML person more than a general purpose SWE.

I don't really know how to interpret this but the whole thing feels kind of botched, especially in comparison with other interview experiences I had at the same time. I could believe anything ranging from "this is normal, calm down" to "run away". Anybody have any thoughts or feedback? I feel at a loss, though intend to feel out team matches and hope for the best.

comments

Want to comment? LOG IN or SIGN UP
TOP 17 Comments
  • Unfortunately they have so many fanboys that will do anything to work at Google (just look at blind) that this seem to be standard practice now. They don't really care if you don't like it. They have an unlimited supply of leetcode losers that will take a pay cut to go to Google
    Apr 5 0
  • Barclays PLC FAANGHNTER
    Take offer and refuse to join. LinkedIn ain't that bad. Follow skills not organization.
    Apr 4 0
  • Oracle alwzangry
    They're totally decentralized and the whole setup is designed to down-level and low-ball you. It's herd-mentality that drives people to suck it up to work for the "prestigious brand". Interviews should be two-way, but the processes are structured to make it a 'take it or leave it' proposition for candidates. This has corrupted the entire industry and all career tracks. You could work hard to go to college, work on great projects, only to go through this. Give them a strong feedback and both middle fingers.
    Apr 5 2
    • LinkedIn VBfE18
      OP
      Totally agree, but in reality I can't afford the double bird because I don't want to burn bridges. In another life I'd love to do it, though.
      Apr 6
    • Oracle alwzangry
      That's what I meant by the corruption of the entire industry and its behavior... Most people cannot afford to take that stance if they want to stay in the industry.
      Apr 6
  • Facebook blueriver
    This... does not seem right :( Can Google folks chime in?

    What rationale did they give for putting you in the general SWE loop? And wouldn’t that affect your team matches...? It’s messed up that they wouldn’t tell you, normally you get different prep materials too (since general SWE design interview is different from ML design)
    Apr 5 1
    • LinkedIn VBfE18
      OP
      I didn't get any rationale, I learned that fact via email and haven't followed up, largely because I don't want to complain too loudly while the recruiter is helping me with team matching. I absolutely suspect it would affect team matching, as well as my role within said teams.

      I got ML interview prep docs, and one or two very targeted deep learning modules, which makes me all the more surprised to learn it's SWE.

      I'm pretty shocked and disappointed about the degree this whole thing has been a mystery that is up to me to unravel. I'm really at a loss.
      Apr 5
  • Google / Eng EIFY
    Sounds like mendacity instead of ineptitude, and I suspect this is becoming Google’s standard practice. Case in point: A significant fraction of SWEs now ended up working for an EngProd (engineering productivity) team, which is tooling and infrastructure for testing others’ code that’s usually reserved for SETIs. Presumably, they can’t find enough people to do grungy work so they resort to bait and switch. I would say run away.
    Apr 5 1
    • LinkedIn VBfE18
      OP
      This is pretty alarming, but I think my case was less deception and more apathy or incompetence or both. As others have pointed out here, they're not really incentivized to care much since there are always more candidates in the queue.
      Apr 6
  • OpenText / Eng FBstockLOL
    The same thing happened to me in terms of unclear onsite schedule. My chaperone who went to lunch with me brought me back to my next interview late. This gave me less time. To make matters worse, the interview had the hardest problem of the day.
    Apr 5 2
    • LinkedIn VBfE18
      OP
      This exact scenario unfolded with me as well that day. The interviewer ended on time, and I was 5 minutes from completing my solution.
      Apr 5
    • OpenText / Eng FBstockLOL
      Funny thing was, it was only after the second or third interview that I realized they were 45 minutes each. This threw me off in estimating how many more interviews I would have. I definitely had more than five interviews. It seems like they try to squeeze in as many 45 minute interviews as possible in a day
      Apr 5
  • VMware / Eng vm12
    Which google location was this? MTV or ?
    Apr 5 1
  • LinkedIn / Eng ikoke
    Don't accept the offer, unless they offer a ridiculous amount of money. Which is increasingly unlikely, unless you also have good competing offers. LinkedIn is a pretty good place to work, & you can always interview again in sometime if you are set on being a Googler.
    Apr 5 1
    • LinkedIn VBfE18
      OP
      Agreed, I'm fortunate because LinkedIn is great, but I'm in the minority. This world be even worse if I desperately needed this Google job.
      Apr 6
  • Oath aiNc76
    How long did it take to hear back that you passed HC?
    Apr 6 0

Salary
Comparison

    Real time salary information from verified employees