There were times I could sense that the Google interviewers sensed that I was one of the smartest guys (I had 30+ years of industry experience and can sense that in the interview), although some interviewers gave an expression that "this guy didn't do Leetcode" or some that after looking at me for 2 seconds, started to find reasons to reject me. But for the ones who thought I was good at programming and was one of the smartest guy, will they go by the "no heroes" rule and therefore not hire me? https://www.quora.com/How-many-hours-a-day-do-Google-employees-work-on-average > There is a pretty widely held philosophy of “no heroes [at Google].” A “hero” in this context is someone who goes way beyond the expected bounds to make their project succeed, things like working 12 hour days and 80 hour weeks. If a project only succeeds because of a “hero,” something is wrong. What happens when that person burns out and quits? For projects to succeed in the long term, the people working on them have to be keeping a sustainable pace. As the cliché goes, success in business is a marathon, not a sprint. TC 390k #google #interview
not in hc and not in google but would not want to work with a "hero". long term team morale is more important than the deadline of one project or another and google likes to think long term
Uhhhh, not really sure what you're asking. Are you asking if interviewers are going to deduce that you're a "hero" and automatically reject you? I don't know but I find your communication style here off-putting. Could be other factors at play here my guy.
ie, they found that you are a rockstar and therefore reject you
Google has some ridiculously smart people, some of whom are very young, so I doubt it's because you are a so-called rockstar but more because you keep calling yourself a rockstar
They put that fake rule out there so they can find out the true heroes and hire them.
I don’t think they will reject you just because of that. But if you are working 80 hrs a week without communicating to your manager/product and asking right trade off questions, it shows weak engineering competencies.
Exactly - they're more likely not hiring "heroes" who insist on doing all the work (flashbacks to school when you said "fuck it" and covered everyone's asses) rather than people who are just good at work. It's a personality and communication thing.
Google doesn't hire "heroes" who hack code over night and push the reviewers to give LGTM before the perf seasons. Google hires "heroes" like ICML/CVPR/NeurIPS best paper award winners and OSS PMC members.
nobody said anything about '"heroes" who hack code over night and push the reviewers to give LGTM before the perf seasons' so don't make things up. You look like one of those guys who like to exert power over people using acronyms... yeah, bravo acronyms. Last time I interviewed at Google, the interviewer insisted that to find the median in an array of numbers, it is O(n log n). I told him it is O(n) and he insisted that it is O(n log n). How "hero" was he? What kind of acronym does he possess?
I'm explaining what "no heroes at Google" means. Don't start ad hominem when you have a different opinion. If you have bad interview experience, don't complain to me, complain to your recruiter.
If you talk to interviewers the same way you wrote this post, you got rejected for that.
all the people who come up here appearing like "heroes" like they can "reject" people and oooooooh... they are so "empowered". Oh what is Ciena? I looked it up... some company with a 3.5 star review in Hanover, MD... a stock price of $773 dropping to $65... wow, so powerful
Cool story bro
how long have you been at apple, why aren’t you retired yet?
because my $12 million house is not big enough, how about that?
The arrogance in this post is incredible. I've personally never seen anyone get rejected for being "too smart". If you answered questions correctly with reasonable discussion about approaches etc., I (and any other interviewer) will give you a strong interview rating. The ratings are based on an interview ruberik to avoid bias. Ultimately hiring committee (made up of separate engineers) makes the final hire/no-hire decision. The point being, the whole process tries to avoid individual bias at every step. Try to take a harder look at your interview performance and don't let a random quora post make you think that you got rejected because you were "too smart".
guess what, even Google people admit there are tons of qualified individuals who got rejected because Google is just so afraid of "false positives". So there. It can explain quite a bit here: qualified people got reject not due to anything, but due to probability or luck. Google likes to hire young Asian females, by the way. Yes... no individual bias but collective bias, eh?
Where are you even getting this data about 'young asian females'? As for the qualified individuals getting rejected, it totally depends on the interview loop. Luck is of course a factor during interview loops and this is not specific to Google. So unfortunately people do get rejected even though they are talented because their interview performance was lacking on that particular day. No one is claiming that the interview process is perfect. Having said that, I don't think anyone would reject a candidate for being too smart. That statement is born out of pure arrogance.
Others are beating around the bush so let me say it - OP you are stupid
I said that! Apparently, he thinks he is too good for Google
The excuses people think of to justify their rejection instead of accepting the truth! 🤦♂️
and you are working at Goldman... a place I don't want to work at for a million years
Ever crossed your mind that this might be my old company, Genius?