Woman recruited by Google four times and rejected, joins age-discrimination suit(computerworld.com)
computerworld.com
Woman recruited by Google four times and rejected, joins age-discrimination suit
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2950914/it-careers/woman-recruited-by-google-four-times-and-rejected-joins-suit.html
102 comments
I experienced a very similar broken interview process, but with Amazon (AWS). It appears this is more common at the big tech companies than I thought , judging from your comment and all the others in this thread.
I was contacted three times for the same position, until I also had to tell the recruiter 'no thank you, remove me from all future positions'.
The first time I was scheduled to fly into Seattle, they even asked me what I wanted for lunch! Then 1 week before the flight, they cancelled everything, reason 'none given', just 'we will keep you on file'. A different recruiter contacted me a second time 3 months later, I thought to schedule the Seattle interview, but I was told it was 'a different hiring manager' and I needed to do the phone screens again. So I did, after the phone screens, I was given the canned email 'we cannot extend another interview..'. Then the same recruiter contacts me again a month later to see if I wanted to interview! At which point I just declined.
I was contacted three times for the same position, until I also had to tell the recruiter 'no thank you, remove me from all future positions'.
The first time I was scheduled to fly into Seattle, they even asked me what I wanted for lunch! Then 1 week before the flight, they cancelled everything, reason 'none given', just 'we will keep you on file'. A different recruiter contacted me a second time 3 months later, I thought to schedule the Seattle interview, but I was told it was 'a different hiring manager' and I needed to do the phone screens again. So I did, after the phone screens, I was given the canned email 'we cannot extend another interview..'. Then the same recruiter contacts me again a month later to see if I wanted to interview! At which point I just declined.
Similar thing happened to me.. went through a very lengthy interview process and successfully passed it where they called me the day after and said that they were going to give me an offer the next day! I was ecstatic.
They then called me the next day and said "oh, yeah -- we aren't going to give you an offer" and wouldnt give me a reason.
The next time, they attempted to recruit me for the same position and I went through several days of phone interviews passing each one. Then I said -- "so you know, I interviewed for this position before and was told I would get an offer, but then didnt" they went back and checked and then said "Yeah we wont be continuing the interview process"
Then it happened a third time! Finally I sent the recruiter an email that said "This is the third time you have attempted to recruit me for this position -- Either offer me the job, with a salaray of X or take me out of your system and stop calling me"
They haven't called me since -- and I still have no idea why I am blacklisted.
They then called me the next day and said "oh, yeah -- we aren't going to give you an offer" and wouldnt give me a reason.
The next time, they attempted to recruit me for the same position and I went through several days of phone interviews passing each one. Then I said -- "so you know, I interviewed for this position before and was told I would get an offer, but then didnt" they went back and checked and then said "Yeah we wont be continuing the interview process"
Then it happened a third time! Finally I sent the recruiter an email that said "This is the third time you have attempted to recruit me for this position -- Either offer me the job, with a salaray of X or take me out of your system and stop calling me"
They haven't called me since -- and I still have no idea why I am blacklisted.
Same thing here. It seemed like what they were really after is finding out my current employer's pay scale for engineers with my amount of experience. They never even officially rejected me. I had to call them to find out what the situation was.
If you are a software engineer, "we no longer need to fill that position" is impossible, because Google uses a general allocation model, not a specific team seat model.
They can't provide a "reasonable explanation" for passing on any candidate because of legal issues. No major company that I know of does that for the same reason.
The term "Rooney Rule" does come to mind.
Google's "interview process" is kind of a Valley joke. The only way you get hired at Google is if you're a "tech celebrity" (i.e. Guido van Rossum), you're a freshly minted grad from the likes of MIT and Stanford or you're an acqui-hire. Of course you have to pass the interviews. But there are almost no exceptions.
The initial phase of recruiting is also somewhat of a joke. I've heard the phrase "they interview anyone with a pulse" repeatedly. My own experience: I have a different recruiter contact me every 6 months, I tell them I'd be very interested in speaking with someone about specific teams / positions at my local office, and then 6 months later I get a call from another recruiter at a completely different office.
This matches my experiences perfectly. Heck, most recently, they contacted me, said they were interested in talking about my experiences, set up a time, and......never called. Nor did they ever email explaining why they didn't call. As if I wasn't already jaded by the experience of myself and several other friends in onsite interview loops, this has done nothing to improve my opinion of them as a company.
Speak of the devil... just got an email from Google. And not from the office I've repeatedly asked to be in touch with.
Come on, if that was true they would never be able to hire tens of thousands of engineers. They do have high false negative rate (by design) but it is far from impossible to pass. I personally know a ton of people who were hired by Google after standard interview process.
Google has upwards of 50k employees. Compare that to IBM: upwards of 500k employees. A friend (and maker and seller of tech companies, so he's quite well connected, much better than I) living in Palo Alto has told me he knows of no one who works at Google in engineering who isn't an acqui-hire.
Your friend probably didn't go Stanford or Ivy League. :-/
Ah, life at the Chocolate Factory.
Having just interviewed at Google, with 15+ years of experience, spending 2 months brushing up on algorithms and data structures, of which none were part of my interview, leaving at the end of the day thinking they'd be crazy not to offer me a job, I was rejected. Several 20-something kids interviewed me, and I'm pretty sure I've forgotten more than they know.
I know they're Google and everyone wants to work there, but if their false-negative rate is so high, I'm not going to bother wasting my time. Don't tell me you're interested in me, create a study surface area that takes months to cover, when in reality the chance of being hired is quite small. It's disrespectful and it pisses people off.
I know they're Google and everyone wants to work there, but if their false-negative rate is so high, I'm not going to bother wasting my time. Don't tell me you're interested in me, create a study surface area that takes months to cover, when in reality the chance of being hired is quite small. It's disrespectful and it pisses people off.
> I know they're Google and everyone wants to work there
If only Google themselves knew how far that is from truth.
If only Google themselves knew how far that is from truth.
> Several 20-something kids interviewed me, and I'm pretty sure I've forgotten more than they know
Not saying you didn't have a bad experience, but it's possible that this kind of attitude didn't help your cause much either...
Not saying you didn't have a bad experience, but it's possible that this kind of attitude didn't help your cause much either...
I had nothing but good conversations. No animosity at all during the interview. That comment is post-interview analysis.
You probably got the "he seems smart, but I would expect someone with this much experience to gave progressed farther in his career, no hire because no trajectory , we can't hire someone with 15 years experience at the '7 years of experience' level he interviewed at". For people who are solid contributors and not "management material", this looks a lot like ageism, but technically maybe isn't.
Now, why they want everyone at a 50K engineer company to be management material...seems ill advised.
Now, why they want everyone at a 50K engineer company to be management material...seems ill advised.
Obviously, I have no idea why I was rejected. If that is the case, no part of their interview tests what a lot of solid devs spend tons of their time doing in their career... solving problems. I have debugged countless problems. It's not sexy, not resume material, but it is reality. There are many, many very good devs working in smaller companies who have made a career out of getting things done. If Google isn't interested in people like that, I question that wisdom.
You also can't make a determination about "management material" by simply looking at a resume and seeing "they aren't a manager". Why am I not a manager, though? Because I still love development. It doesn't mean I don't mentor people. It doesn't mean I don't hold a lot of weight in determining how we do things.
I'm not really claiming ageism. I'm in my mid-30's. I'd be surprised if that was it. I do wonder if it's wise having 20-somethings interviewing people though.
You also can't make a determination about "management material" by simply looking at a resume and seeing "they aren't a manager". Why am I not a manager, though? Because I still love development. It doesn't mean I don't mentor people. It doesn't mean I don't hold a lot of weight in determining how we do things.
I'm not really claiming ageism. I'm in my mid-30's. I'd be surprised if that was it. I do wonder if it's wise having 20-somethings interviewing people though.
That seems like a huge leap to a conclusion with the parent comment doesn't substantiate (without more information). Just sayin'
Google is well known in the Valley for having really bad interviewing process, but from this article it's not really obvious that's the case here, nor that she's being discriminated for her age. Her resume does look nice, but that tells us nothing about her skills or performance on the interviews.
Regarding the age portion of this. I've visited Google a bunch of times. I'm always amazed how young people are there. It seems more like a college campus than a business. It seems to me, in the Mountain View complex, at busy times like lunch, that 95% of the people I'd see are in the 20-30 range, with a few older people sprinkled in. It's been this way every time I've been there.
I worked for AOL in 2005-2006 back before the huge layoffs occurred (and me included) and it had a similar "college campus" vibe. Overall, it wasn't a bad place to work, but upper management was a living testament to Dilbert. The company I work for now has a wide range of ages, including a lot of older people... which is good, because I'm 50 now.
AOL's hiring process at the time was similarly dysfunctional. I'd interviewed once a year or two previously, but never heard back (which I didn't realize at the time is now the norm). The only reason I was able to eventually get in was because I had a friend working there who got me past the HR barriers. This friend, who was much more experienced than I was only able to be hired when a technical manager stumbled across his resume. Apparently, he couldn't get past HR either, but when the manager found about my friend his attitude was "Why in the world aren't we interviewing this guy?!" As I said, I got laid off, but my friend is still there.
My experience with some companies has been that hiring is run by HR people who have no idea what they are doing, or whom they are looking for, or how to filter resumes by anything other than keywords (e.g., the proverbial "10 years experience with a two-year-old technology" nonsense) and so the hiring managers often never get a chance to see candidates they would be very interested in.
AOL's hiring process at the time was similarly dysfunctional. I'd interviewed once a year or two previously, but never heard back (which I didn't realize at the time is now the norm). The only reason I was able to eventually get in was because I had a friend working there who got me past the HR barriers. This friend, who was much more experienced than I was only able to be hired when a technical manager stumbled across his resume. Apparently, he couldn't get past HR either, but when the manager found about my friend his attitude was "Why in the world aren't we interviewing this guy?!" As I said, I got laid off, but my friend is still there.
My experience with some companies has been that hiring is run by HR people who have no idea what they are doing, or whom they are looking for, or how to filter resumes by anything other than keywords (e.g., the proverbial "10 years experience with a two-year-old technology" nonsense) and so the hiring managers often never get a chance to see candidates they would be very interested in.
Google's gotta fake the H-1B requirements by pretending not to find local people for cheap foreign labor.
H-1B imposes that the hire has competitive pay.
That's only part of the story. If you lose your job, you might not be able to stay -- and competitive pay may still be lower than a US candidate.
So who do you want if you're Google? An H1-B with really heavy golden handcuffs, or a US candidate who will rush off and join the latest hot startup next week after they've tagged 'Worked at Google' on their resume?
So who do you want if you're Google? An H1-B with really heavy golden handcuffs, or a US candidate who will rush off and join the latest hot startup next week after they've tagged 'Worked at Google' on their resume?
The golden handcuffs of an H1B are not heavy. Just get in on Google's dime and join the latest hot startup next week after they've tagged "H1B" on their passport.
Assuming the latest hot startup would apply for your H1-B transfer, and that it would be granted.
This is normal for Google's byzantine hiring process. I got in once a while back (way before what I'm doing now) with a high recommendation from an insider, successfully cleared the interviews, and never heard anything. They even flew me to Mountain View.
The second time they called, I declined.
The second time they called, I declined.
So she has good qualifications but poor interview skills.
Alternatively, she has good qualifications and Google has interview practices or policies that are - intentionally or not - age-discriminatory.
Generally speaking, if well-qualified people are constantly failing your interviews, the problem may not be these well-qualified people and instead might be your interviews ;)
Considering that the typical programming interview in this industry does not involve writing any actual code (no, waving your arms against a whiteboard in a coding-like way doesn't count), I'm generally inclined to believe interviews are more problematic than interviewees.
Generally speaking, if well-qualified people are constantly failing your interviews, the problem may not be these well-qualified people and instead might be your interviews ;)
Considering that the typical programming interview in this industry does not involve writing any actual code (no, waving your arms against a whiteboard in a coding-like way doesn't count), I'm generally inclined to believe interviews are more problematic than interviewees.
>Generally speaking, if well-qualified people are constantly failing your interviews, the problem may not be these well-qualified people and instead might be your interviews ;)
Google have [probably] rarely interviewed anyone who was not well qualified - yet around 90% of candidates fail the interview. I am assuming there will be ~10 interviewed candidates per role and they have pre-screening essentially for "qualified on paper".
I've no position on whether they're discriminatory, but that statement simply doesn't hold water.
Google have [probably] rarely interviewed anyone who was not well qualified - yet around 90% of candidates fail the interview. I am assuming there will be ~10 interviewed candidates per role and they have pre-screening essentially for "qualified on paper".
I've no position on whether they're discriminatory, but that statement simply doesn't hold water.
> "Google have [probably] rarely interviewed anyone who was not well qualified - yet around 90% of candidates fail the interview."
This statement hinges on the belief that these 90% of candidates fail because, while qualified on paper, they are not actually qualified for the job.
I suspect it isn't actually true, and that in reality the Google interview process fails very large number of actually-qualified candidates, while also admitting a large number of not-actually-qualified candidates. In short, I suspect beyond pre-screening people for paper qualifications, the actual on-sites have an effectiveness in the order of a coin toss.
But yet we take pride in failing hordes of people, because it somehow implies nice things about our surviving it. Somehow the fact that the process for hiring programmers doesn't involve any programming, and that we are hiring people to architect large systems by solving isolated CS101 algorithms questions, doesn't bother us.
This statement hinges on the belief that these 90% of candidates fail because, while qualified on paper, they are not actually qualified for the job.
I suspect it isn't actually true, and that in reality the Google interview process fails very large number of actually-qualified candidates, while also admitting a large number of not-actually-qualified candidates. In short, I suspect beyond pre-screening people for paper qualifications, the actual on-sites have an effectiveness in the order of a coin toss.
But yet we take pride in failing hordes of people, because it somehow implies nice things about our surviving it. Somehow the fact that the process for hiring programmers doesn't involve any programming, and that we are hiring people to architect large systems by solving isolated CS101 algorithms questions, doesn't bother us.
It doesn't really hinge on them not being qualified for the job the way I read it. It hinges on them not being 'the most qualified' for the job. As failure of the interview to me is defined as not getting the job. And interviewing 10 people for every position leads to them choosing a most qualified out of those 10 and leaving notes for future teams looking to fill a position.
I am no way saying their practices are not discriminatory, just that I read that statement differently.
I think due to the complete lack of disclosure about why you don't get a job in the tech industry it will be interesting to see Google have to justify their decisions with the facts to a court. I personally ask after most every interview what I could do to improve, or what I did wrong. With very rare exceptions I am told they can not disclose that information for liability reasons. (Google and Amazon both definitely gave me this answer) A handful of companies have told me things like, we went with a candidate that had more experience in ________. And once a company told me that a project was cancelled so they unfortunately no longer had a position available.
I am no way saying their practices are not discriminatory, just that I read that statement differently.
I think due to the complete lack of disclosure about why you don't get a job in the tech industry it will be interesting to see Google have to justify their decisions with the facts to a court. I personally ask after most every interview what I could do to improve, or what I did wrong. With very rare exceptions I am told they can not disclose that information for liability reasons. (Google and Amazon both definitely gave me this answer) A handful of companies have told me things like, we went with a candidate that had more experience in ________. And once a company told me that a project was cancelled so they unfortunately no longer had a position available.
> "And interviewing 10 people for every position leads to them choosing a most qualified out of those 10 and leaving notes for future teams looking to fill a position."
I'd agree with you if the above was true - but it isn't at Google, nor is it true throughout the majority of the industry.
Most companies (Google included) hire based on a fairly simple "first past the post" system. A candidate comes in, interviews, and a hire/no-hire decision is made shortly after. In cases where two candidates are interviewing simultaneously some comparison might be made between the two, but otherwise the candidates are decided upon serially.
I don't know of any companies that practice the "interview N people, choose best" methodology - if they did, then yes, I agree that "failing" 90% of people might be more reasonable.
I don't even know if that strategy is practicable - sourcing candidates generally takes a long time. Getting N people to interview within a short time window for the same position is nearly impossible for any N > 2.
I'd agree with you if the above was true - but it isn't at Google, nor is it true throughout the majority of the industry.
Most companies (Google included) hire based on a fairly simple "first past the post" system. A candidate comes in, interviews, and a hire/no-hire decision is made shortly after. In cases where two candidates are interviewing simultaneously some comparison might be made between the two, but otherwise the candidates are decided upon serially.
I don't know of any companies that practice the "interview N people, choose best" methodology - if they did, then yes, I agree that "failing" 90% of people might be more reasonable.
I don't even know if that strategy is practicable - sourcing candidates generally takes a long time. Getting N people to interview within a short time window for the same position is nearly impossible for any N > 2.
The company I work for very much does that, as have others I have interviewed at and knew people working at. The company I currently work for is legally required to interview N (I don't know what N is) candidates for each position, hiring takes a long time due to clearances, and they have firm dates they need to have people started by so they can finish projects on time as they get projects. In the case they can not find enough qualified candidates where I work they relax the criteria and interview unqualified ones and hire the best they can find in that bunch, probably how I got hired with no experience. A candidate search usually starts 6 months prior to a project starting, with a decision made at least 2 months prior. While it is not the company I currently work for Salesforce.com is a company I have good reason to believe uses a system of choosing a single person out of a pool of interviewed people after a certain number have been interviewed.
Since google has the multiple rounds of interviews and they very much had notes on my first time interviewing for my second time interviewing (neither of which did I make it to the second round of in person interviews). I suspect that googles last day of in person interviews, (2nd day? 3rd day? don't know how many days of in person interviews they have but I know it is more than one) is when they perform things in the manner you are describing. I have been told all the technical portions of the interview are over by the last day of in person interviews by some people who work there, although I am taking that information on faith based off the fact they are people I trust, and do not know first hand. Also from what I could tell Google does not use a short time window for their interview process either, as each time I entered the process it took over 3 weeks to go from recruiter to the first in person round.
Since google has the multiple rounds of interviews and they very much had notes on my first time interviewing for my second time interviewing (neither of which did I make it to the second round of in person interviews). I suspect that googles last day of in person interviews, (2nd day? 3rd day? don't know how many days of in person interviews they have but I know it is more than one) is when they perform things in the manner you are describing. I have been told all the technical portions of the interview are over by the last day of in person interviews by some people who work there, although I am taking that information on faith based off the fact they are people I trust, and do not know first hand. Also from what I could tell Google does not use a short time window for their interview process either, as each time I entered the process it took over 3 weeks to go from recruiter to the first in person round.
Every place I've worked, either being interviewed or doing the interviewing, has worked on a "multiple interviews and pick the best" basis.
This first past the post nonsense is crazy.
This first past the post nonsense is crazy.
At growing companies like Google, they hire everyone who meets their vague "hiring bar"
The times I interviewed at google it was made clear to me that I was interviewing for a position on a specific team, and not a general hiring pool. So far as I met most of the team members, maybe you are correct though and the team size was just very flexible.
I trust then Google is not one of the companies whining about "talent shortages" then?
Biggest point here. You can't flunk out 90% of your applications and complain you have a shortage of qualified staff. You have people begging to work for you, how about you hire a few of them and teach them anything that's missing. Oh the horror, the employees aren't replaceable meat cogs in some giant machine.
That is illogical. If a million plumbers and no programmers applied to be programmers, would Google be wrong to not hire them? We are talking about skilled jobs in a specific trade.
Why are you interviewing the plumbers? If a million plumber and no programmers applied, you would immediately reject every resume and not interview anyone.
Note that this assumes none of the plumbers have been working on teaching themselves software development in order to make a career change and thus do not have non-work evidence of competence.
Note that this assumes none of the plumbers have been working on teaching themselves software development in order to make a career change and thus do not have non-work evidence of competence.
Seems just strange to keep asking someone you reject to come back. When I am turned away I am turned away no more.
Four times does seem excessive, but I have been called back by companies to interview for other positions in the past. I wasn't a fit for some reason in the first instance, but my information was saved and presented again when another opportunity came up that they thought I would be a fit for.
I on multiple occasions have asked Google recruiters to put me on a "leave me the fuck alone" list.
Maybe. It is very hard to prove one way or another.
The only way to "prove" discrimination is to show a pattern of behaviours rather than isolated incidents. That's what lawsuits like this often hinge upon, they will use discovery to primarily prove that discrimination is occurring.
The only way to "prove" discrimination is to show a pattern of behaviours rather than isolated incidents. That's what lawsuits like this often hinge upon, they will use discovery to primarily prove that discrimination is occurring.
After the first interview she was re-contacted by the Google recruiters who told her she had done very well in her interview, and that was why they were contacting her for other positions.
So she has good qualifications but poor interview skills.
'Interview skills' is pretty much a euphamism for allowing confidence bias to dominate your interview process.
It's fairly notorious that /Google/ has poor interview skills. A study by their own HR department showed as much.
They have extreme prejudice in favor of attributes that do not impact performance.
They have extreme prejudice in favor of attributes that do not impact performance.
So does almost everywhere I have interviewed recently. Hour and a half coding test. Why? I never code like that.
As an industry we basically have no idea how to hire coders. Worse, copying interview practices from the big tech companies is rampant, even though the big companies are by far the most dogmatic of them all.
Remember when asking "logic" brain teasers was believed to be highly correlated with programming ability? Why are manhole covers round? How many jelly beans are in this jar? Why is this lightbulb so fucking warm? Not so long ago these were serious interview questions.
Then the big tech-cos moved onto simply making people scribble algorithms problems on a whiteboard and everybody else followed unquestioningly.
There is shockingly little self-reflection when it comes to tech interview methodology, and for an industry so obsessed with proving assumptions with data, we also do very little of that. Most interview "best practices" are accepted on faith and their validity is literally never tested.
Remember when asking "logic" brain teasers was believed to be highly correlated with programming ability? Why are manhole covers round? How many jelly beans are in this jar? Why is this lightbulb so fucking warm? Not so long ago these were serious interview questions.
Then the big tech-cos moved onto simply making people scribble algorithms problems on a whiteboard and everybody else followed unquestioningly.
There is shockingly little self-reflection when it comes to tech interview methodology, and for an industry so obsessed with proving assumptions with data, we also do very little of that. Most interview "best practices" are accepted on faith and their validity is literally never tested.
Yup. Happens all the time. You're going to have quite a few candidates who are technically qualified. That's sort of the purpose of interviewing them.
And now she will never get hired by Google after trying to sue them.
And now she will never get hired by Google after trying to sue them.
The reason she joined the lawsuit is because she believed that Google was never going to hire her anyway. So you're sort of implying that she is somehow burning a bridge that was never built.
"And now she will never get hired by Google after trying to sue them."
I don't think she cares much about working for Google in the future, since she's switched careers and bought a dairy farm.
I don't think she cares much about working for Google in the future, since she's switched careers and bought a dairy farm.
I imagine it's possible there is age discrimination at Google but I doubt it contributed in this case. Why would Google have contacted her multiple times if age had been a problem before?
Like the rest of us she's not getting any younger...
Like the rest of us she's not getting any younger...
Why would Google have contacted her multiple times if age had been a problem before?
Why would Google contact anyone multiple times inf there had been any problems before?
Obviously their process must include some sort of returning to potential recruits, or the recruiter just has no data on the previous attempts to recruit her. If it was the case that age was the reason they chose not to hire her, they know damn well not to write that down.
Why would Google contact anyone multiple times inf there had been any problems before?
Obviously their process must include some sort of returning to potential recruits, or the recruiter just has no data on the previous attempts to recruit her. If it was the case that age was the reason they chose not to hire her, they know damn well not to write that down.
People in the US don't put their age on their resume, and many people past a certain age try to obscure data on the resume that would give their age away. It's illegal to ask in an interview, so perhaps they didn't realize until they saw the candidate in person. I remember reading somewhere the average age of google employees (that's all employees, not new hires) is below 30. A group like that isn't likely to hire someone too old for them to relate to any more than a company with an average age over 50 is going to be interested in hiring a 19 yr old. We can't relate to people of a different age, that's the way it's always been.
Where I live, if your date of birth (and in some cases recent color photograph) isn't on your resume, they'll assume you have something to hide and you'll get no response. Might as well be upfront about it.
Where I live, if your date of birth (and in some cases recent color photograph) isn't on your resume, they'll assume you have something to hide and you'll get no response. Might as well be upfront about it.
That's odd. Where is that?
afaik, South Korea is like that as well.
Here is a sample korean resume that shows a color photo, age and SSN:
http://www.soompi.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/resume.jpg
Here is a sample korean resume that shows a color photo, age and SSN:
http://www.soompi.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/resume.jpg
Why did Amazon contact me to invite me to a hiring event, only to immediately reject me due to "prior interview feedback"? Sometimes the left hand doesn't talk to the right at these large companies.
Because it's a big organization and recruiters are lazy or out of the loop.
It's possible to be contacted by multiple recruiters at the same company, no?
"Google favors workers who are under the age 40"
I am thinking about my career path. I don't know if a company will hire me as a software developer when I am 40+ years old. I do understand the companies like young people.
I have been surprised at how many programmers left the industry to become farmers.
I can't believe the number of people defending Google in the comments on that article and elsewhere. I'm sorry, but if you actively recruit someone and interview them in person FOUR times but continue to mysteriously deny them something is horrifically wrong with your hiring process. Beyond that, statistics don't lie.
I don't know... They interviewed me 5 times, and I don't mind so much. It's a bit frustrating, but I can understand why.
Sure there were a few cases of "oops, didn't realize we interviewed you already" and I'm sure there are cases of "we just don't like you as a person". But I'm pretty sure overall, with Google and most companies, the reason was just "you just weren't good enough compared to our other current candidates." And that's OK.
The fact that they re-interview someone they dismiss is a good thing. The fact that they re-interview N times a person they've dismissed N-1 times is just unfortunate and makes it more visible, but it's not in itself a malevolent thing. Maybe it'd be best if they didn't re-interview at all because it makes them look bad (after all, chances are higher they'll reject you again if they already did). But I guess I prefer the view that they don't want to pass on someone that might have improved, or someone that they might have dismissed for the wrong reasons the first time. And I see that as rather positive.
I personally re-interviewed some people multiple times - and both people I had rejected before and people I had approved but who denied or who got hired but then left and decided to come back. It doesn't struck me as a bad thing to re-assess people based on your current needs and your current workforce. You just have not to be a jerk about it.
I'm sure not everybody shares that view though.
Sure there were a few cases of "oops, didn't realize we interviewed you already" and I'm sure there are cases of "we just don't like you as a person". But I'm pretty sure overall, with Google and most companies, the reason was just "you just weren't good enough compared to our other current candidates." And that's OK.
The fact that they re-interview someone they dismiss is a good thing. The fact that they re-interview N times a person they've dismissed N-1 times is just unfortunate and makes it more visible, but it's not in itself a malevolent thing. Maybe it'd be best if they didn't re-interview at all because it makes them look bad (after all, chances are higher they'll reject you again if they already did). But I guess I prefer the view that they don't want to pass on someone that might have improved, or someone that they might have dismissed for the wrong reasons the first time. And I see that as rather positive.
I personally re-interviewed some people multiple times - and both people I had rejected before and people I had approved but who denied or who got hired but then left and decided to come back. It doesn't struck me as a bad thing to re-assess people based on your current needs and your current workforce. You just have not to be a jerk about it.
I'm sure not everybody shares that view though.
Sounds like you've never heard how terrible the interview system is at google. Four interviews and no offer doesn't seem at all out of the ordinary. I know more than one person that started refusing google job opportunities due to the bullshit.
Completely agree. Even if the only thing wrong is, they can't keep track of who they've already interviewed (so they don't call them again), that's pretty sad. You're freakin' Google, and you can keep your decided-against list eventually consistent? Poor form.
"No hire" is not a permanent Scarlet letter. Why is it wrong to take a second chance?
The title is a little misleading. She was never actually hired, just interviewed.
Maybe the title changed since your comment, but 'recruited and rejected' means exactly that, interviewed and not hired.
Down votes are incorrect.
Recruited means enlisted, hired. She was never hired, she was contacted by recruiters and interviewed. "Recruited" doesn't mean "contacted by recruiters" it means hired to do work. Recruiter - who hires/searches for "recruits". Recruit is a person that was recruited not contacted by a recruiter.
Recruited means enlisted, hired. She was never hired, she was contacted by recruiters and interviewed. "Recruited" doesn't mean "contacted by recruiters" it means hired to do work. Recruiter - who hires/searches for "recruits". Recruit is a person that was recruited not contacted by a recruiter.
Not at any tech company I've ever worked at.
Recruiters contacting someone is the recruiting -- the reaching out, telling them what a great company it is, getting them in for an interview, and so on. It's expanding the funnel of interviewees.
Hiring is actually making an offer. That decision is made by different people higher up, and not the recruiter.
Maybe it's different at different companies or industries, but this is my whole experience with it across all sorts of companies in NYC.
(And in response to comment about the Merriam-Webster definition -- meanings change. Lots of tech lingo is different from dictionary definitions. You can say "let's offline this" in a meeting, and you won't find that definition in MW either.)
Recruiters contacting someone is the recruiting -- the reaching out, telling them what a great company it is, getting them in for an interview, and so on. It's expanding the funnel of interviewees.
Hiring is actually making an offer. That decision is made by different people higher up, and not the recruiter.
Maybe it's different at different companies or industries, but this is my whole experience with it across all sorts of companies in NYC.
(And in response to comment about the Merriam-Webster definition -- meanings change. Lots of tech lingo is different from dictionary definitions. You can say "let's offline this" in a meeting, and you won't find that definition in MW either.)
>> Not at any tech company I've ever worked at.
Well, there are grey areas to a lot of these words we're using in this discussion, as the meaning depends heavily on context and the background of the reader (or recipient).
>> Hiring is actually making an offer.
Is it? So when Github says "we're hiring", does that mean they're making an offer to everyone who contacts them? I tend to think most people will interpret that as "we're accepting applications for open positions".
Of course, if Github says "We're hiring Joe Smith", that's a completely different meaning because it's in a different context.
Well, there are grey areas to a lot of these words we're using in this discussion, as the meaning depends heavily on context and the background of the reader (or recipient).
>> Hiring is actually making an offer.
Is it? So when Github says "we're hiring", does that mean they're making an offer to everyone who contacts them? I tend to think most people will interpret that as "we're accepting applications for open positions".
Of course, if Github says "We're hiring Joe Smith", that's a completely different meaning because it's in a different context.
The recruiters _are_ recruiting, but they have not recruited someone until that person is earning a salary.
No, at it's most strict they haven't recruited someone until the company makes an offer. You can be recruited by multiple groups simultaneously. Happens all the time in college sports.
> No, at it's most strict they haven't recruited someone until the company makes an offer. You can be recruited by multiple groups simultaneously. Happens all the time in college sports.
Kinda depends on the context, doesn't it? The context can subtly change how the word is interpreted.
This is how I would interpret the various forms based on my own personal experience -- your interpretations may differ:
Recruiter is recruiting Joe -> Trying to hire Joe
Recruiter has recruited Joe -> Successfully hired Joe
Joe was recruited x times by Google --> Google tried to hire Joe x times
Joe was recruited x times by Google to do Y, Z --> Google assigned or hired Joe to do Y, Z x times
Joe is being recruited -> Someone is trying to hire Joe
Joe was being recruited by A, B, C -> A, B, C trying to hire Joe
We are recruiting Joe to be our representative for X -> Joe has been designated to be the representative
Joe was recruited by Company -> Joe was hired
Joe is a new recruit -> Joe is a new employee
Kinda depends on the context, doesn't it? The context can subtly change how the word is interpreted.
This is how I would interpret the various forms based on my own personal experience -- your interpretations may differ:
Recruiter is recruiting Joe -> Trying to hire Joe
Recruiter has recruited Joe -> Successfully hired Joe
Joe was recruited x times by Google --> Google tried to hire Joe x times
Joe was recruited x times by Google to do Y, Z --> Google assigned or hired Joe to do Y, Z x times
Joe is being recruited -> Someone is trying to hire Joe
Joe was being recruited by A, B, C -> A, B, C trying to hire Joe
We are recruiting Joe to be our representative for X -> Joe has been designated to be the representative
Joe was recruited by Company -> Joe was hired
Joe is a new recruit -> Joe is a new employee
These examples show that the language is ambiguous. Coders need to cope with that, not pretend English has a good spec.
This sub-discussion reminds me of the issues with the phrase "job offer". To native English speakers, it is generally taken to mean "company has offered to hire you with a certain compensation package". To non-native English speakers, particularly it seems continental Europeans, it is generally taken to mean "company has offered to consider you for a job" (as opposed to you approaching them).
Down votes aren't incorrect because of the definition of 'recruited'.
Down votes are incorrect because downvoting someone merely because you disagree is the embodiment of confirmation bias.
That makes it the enemy of debate, and of reason itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
(Cue a stream of people claiming the thread is off-topic as an attempt to rationalise their downvotes, or down-voting me with equally fallacious reasoning)
Down votes are incorrect because downvoting someone merely because you disagree is the embodiment of confirmation bias.
That makes it the enemy of debate, and of reason itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
(Cue a stream of people claiming the thread is off-topic as an attempt to rationalise their downvotes, or down-voting me with equally fallacious reasoning)
...and downvotes. Pathetic guys, really pathetic.
pg said downvoting disagreement is fine.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171
Well, I respectfully disagree, for the reasons already stated (like most of the on-topic replies to that comment). Even the ones that agreed with pg suggested other mechanics to make up for the down-sides of the current system.
At the start of an innovation or social change the majority opinion is wrong, almost by definition. By having a single reward metric, and then structuring your system so that minority opinions get punished, you're creating a culture that's less free-thinking and more monocultural than it should be.
I can totally understand pg not wanting to change it, after all, he has a day job, but I don't think his 'up is agreement so down should be disagreement because symmetry' argument is worth much as stated.
After all, simple agreement has no worthwhile attribute other than a count of those who agree. Disagreement on the other hand is completely different, there are thousands of reasons why you might disagree with anything but the simplest of comments. Simply recording disagreement as a number is meaningless.
Edit: (I upvoted you for bothering to engage and find a link rather than just downvoting)
At the start of an innovation or social change the majority opinion is wrong, almost by definition. By having a single reward metric, and then structuring your system so that minority opinions get punished, you're creating a culture that's less free-thinking and more monocultural than it should be.
I can totally understand pg not wanting to change it, after all, he has a day job, but I don't think his 'up is agreement so down should be disagreement because symmetry' argument is worth much as stated.
After all, simple agreement has no worthwhile attribute other than a count of those who agree. Disagreement on the other hand is completely different, there are thousands of reasons why you might disagree with anything but the simplest of comments. Simply recording disagreement as a number is meaningless.
Edit: (I upvoted you for bothering to engage and find a link rather than just downvoting)
I agree with you, I was just pointing out the rules. I try not to worry about the point system here too much. Usually I just upvote everybody who replies to me.
Nope. Not according to my understanding, and not according to dictionaries such as the Merriam-Webster:
recruit verb re·cruit \ri-ˈkrüt\
: to find suitable people and get them to join a company, an organization, the armed forces, etc.
: to form or build (a group, team, army, etc.) by getting people to join
: to persuade (someone) to join you in some activity or to help you
"Recruited" definitely means she was hired. She wasn't, she was only interviewed four times and not given a job offer each time.
Check her resume: https://www.linkedin.com/in/cherylfillekes
recruit verb re·cruit \ri-ˈkrüt\
: to find suitable people and get them to join a company, an organization, the armed forces, etc.
: to form or build (a group, team, army, etc.) by getting people to join
: to persuade (someone) to join you in some activity or to help you
"Recruited" definitely means she was hired. She wasn't, she was only interviewed four times and not given a job offer each time.
Check her resume: https://www.linkedin.com/in/cherylfillekes
That is only a subset of current common widespread usage.
For example, high school athletes who receive offers from more than one school are often said to have been recruited by all the schools.
Some examples from Wikipedia articles:
Magic Johnson: "Although Johnson was recruited by several top-ranked colleges such as Indiana and UCLA, he decided to play close to home".
Fred VanFleet: "At Auburn High School in Rockford, Illinois, he was an All-State player who was mostly recruited by mid-major basketball programs".
Marcus Dupree: "Dupree was heavily recruited by the major college football programs, and during the final month of the recruiting period, his high school coach, Joe Wood, answered more than 100 phone calls a day from colleges".
Marcus Mariota: "He was recruited by Oregon, Hawaii, Memphis, Utah, Oregon State, Washington, Arizona, Notre Dame, UCLA and USC but was only offered a scholarship by Memphis and Oregon".
Chris Taylor: "He was recruited to play college baseball by the University of Virginia and the College of William & Mary".
I'm kind of surprised that dictionary has missed this. I'm even more surprised that other dictionaries I checked also missed this.
For example, high school athletes who receive offers from more than one school are often said to have been recruited by all the schools.
Some examples from Wikipedia articles:
Magic Johnson: "Although Johnson was recruited by several top-ranked colleges such as Indiana and UCLA, he decided to play close to home".
Fred VanFleet: "At Auburn High School in Rockford, Illinois, he was an All-State player who was mostly recruited by mid-major basketball programs".
Marcus Dupree: "Dupree was heavily recruited by the major college football programs, and during the final month of the recruiting period, his high school coach, Joe Wood, answered more than 100 phone calls a day from colleges".
Marcus Mariota: "He was recruited by Oregon, Hawaii, Memphis, Utah, Oregon State, Washington, Arizona, Notre Dame, UCLA and USC but was only offered a scholarship by Memphis and Oregon".
Chris Taylor: "He was recruited to play college baseball by the University of Virginia and the College of William & Mary".
I'm kind of surprised that dictionary has missed this. I'm even more surprised that other dictionaries I checked also missed this.
Could you possibly be focusing on a less important facet of what this discussion should be about?
It is important.
The title implies that she was actually hired and let go 4 times - which doesn't make sense and would be a very awkward story. Being interviewed 4 times and passed on is a completely different story.
The title implies that she was actually hired and let go 4 times - which doesn't make sense and would be a very awkward story. Being interviewed 4 times and passed on is a completely different story.
handy you left one off
d. to seek to enroll
The recruiter, recruited her to join google. just as coaches from many different schools might recruit an athlete. One does not in fact have to be successful to have recruited someone.
The recruiter, recruited her to join google. just as coaches from many different schools might recruit an athlete. One does not in fact have to be successful to have recruited someone.
or...
noun a person newly enlisted in the armed forces and not yet fully trained. • a new member of an organization or supporter of a cause.
noun a person newly enlisted in the armed forces and not yet fully trained. • a new member of an organization or supporter of a cause.
What's this dumb downvote for? The title said she was recruited and let go 4 times which doesn't make any sense. The actual story is that she was interviewed 4 times and then ignored.
"no, thank you. either i am not a good fit or you are using me to have a reasonable pool of candidates to compare against."
the entire process is very lengthy, slow, often interacting with rude interviewers, with no eta on if an offer will be made and no reasonable explanation on why they did not make an offer. One time the reason I got was "we no longer need to fill that position" after 3 months of interview loop.