diff --git a/content/log/2022/big-tech-hiring.md b/content/log/2022/big-tech-hiring.md
index f636177..374d4ee 100644
--- a/content/log/2022/big-tech-hiring.md
+++ b/content/log/2022/big-tech-hiring.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
---
title: "In Defense Of Big Tech Hiring"
-date: 2022-06-19T12:44:16+03:00
+date: 2022-06-23T13:45:00+03:00
slug: big-tech-hiring
draft: true
---
@@ -12,28 +12,39 @@ processes. If you have not heard, these are good introductory posts:
- [Dan Luu — We only hire the trendiest (2016)][danluu-trendiest].
- [Thomas Ptacek — The Hiring Post (2015)][tptacek-hiring-post].
-I will be conducting an [Uber Mock Interview][uber-mock-interview] later this
-month. I meant to write about seemingly broken BigTech interviews for a while
-now, but this event offered me a concrete deadline. I feel like I have to
-explain to myself why I am doing an interview at all, and why I am OK with the
-format we are planning to use. In this post I will:
+The gist of the posts above is:
+- BigTech hiring process is pretty much the same across BigTech. It is
+ explained in this post, even, in detail. Therefore, the companies are
+ applying the same criteria, and thus fighting for the same candidates: the
+ candidates that do well in these particular interviews, but not necessarily
+ at the job.
+- Because the filter is the same, it does not encourage diversity in candidate
+ background.
+- The interview process, and especially the problems, are not representative to
+ what the dayjob will require. Some links above offer alternative methods of
+ interviewing.
+
+Why am I writing about this? I will be conducting an [Uber Mock
+Interview][uber-mock-interview] later this month. I meant to write about
+seemingly broken BigTech interviews for a while now, but this event offered me
+a concrete deadline. I feel like I have to explain to myself why I am doing an
+interview at all, and why I am OK with the format we are planning to use. In
+this post I will:
+- Walk through the "standard" interview process of a Big Tech. [I've worked at
+ two]({{< ref "resume" >}} "Resume Page"), the process is very similar; will
+ shamelessly extrapolate for "most others". (This matches the experience of my
+ friends whom I have surveyed.)
- Explain some reasons why *I think* the interviews are done the way they are,
- and why we reasonably expect them to work, despite of all the negatives we
- keep reading about all the time.
-- Understand/recap the interview process of Big Techs. [I've worked at two]({{<
- ref "resume" >}} "Resume"), the process is very similar; will shamelessly
- extrapolate for "most others".
+ and why we reasonably expect them to work, despite the negatives.
- Talk about the limitations/caveats of the process, along with mitigations how
- to work around them.
-- Hopefully refute some of the popular beliefs that hiring process in big tech
- companies "is incredibly stupid". Yes, I have heard this multiple times.
+ we can work around them.
Usual disclaimer: this is my personal opinion and this blog is not affiliated
with my employer in any way.
-Jump to the bottom for the [TLDR](#tldr-is-this-stupid-or-not).
+Jump to the bottom for the [conclusion](#tldr-so-does-it-work).
-## The standard interview process
+## Trade-offs of the standard interview process
This is how a standard[^1] interview loop in the big techs I've worked so far
at looked/looks like:
@@ -49,19 +60,32 @@ at looked/looks like:
4. All participants above: Debrief, where hire/no-hire decision is made:
30-60m++.
-I will be focusing on the parts of the process where qualified, bright, but not
-"interview primed" candidates may be rejected. Thomas Ptacek
-[states][tptacek-hiring-post] writes:
+Such process somewhat works for the BigTech and individuals. The primary goals
+of the BigTech seems to be:
+- Apply a consistent filter and make sure candidates are evaluated fairly.
+- Get the best candidates for the environment.
+- Fit into the constraints. E.g. it makes sense to invest only X amount of
+ hours to interview each candidate, given their acceptance rate is Y%.
+
+We, as engineers, have our goals. Usually they are:
+- BigTech benefits. (Will not enumerate them here, but I will buy you a coffee
+ and tell you in person if you want to know more.)
+- Long interview process: it takes time and energy. Lots of energy. Like
+ everything that takes time, energy and is stressful, we want to get it over
+ with quickly.
+
+I will be focusing mostly on the "consistent filter" and the "stress/energy"
+part. About which Thomas Ptacek [states][tptacek-hiring-post]:
> The majority of people who can code can’t do it well in an interview.
-Well, let's see how the his words hold. But first let's drill into the process.
+Well, let's see how this holds. But first let's drill into the process.
### Recruiter: CV screen
CV screen is conducted by a recruiter in the HR department: I do not take part
in this, therefore I have no visibility into rejected candidates. To the
-recruiters’ credit, juding from the resumes I’ve seen during phone screens, we
+recruiters’ credit, judging from the resumes I've seen during phone screens, we
interview folks with diverse backgrounds, even with a minimal "match." For
example, a physicist major with data analysis background in Python is unusual,
but not very surprising: they do get a fair chance at the phone screen.
@@ -263,20 +287,33 @@ If you are not a good team player, that will likely be determined during this
or the Hiring Manager's interview. That may be OK depending on the position;
but more often than not, this is a red flag.
-## TLDR: is this stupid or not?
+## TLDR: so does it work?
-I do not think the BigTech hiring process is stupid. I can see legitimate
-reasons behind every part of the interview. When the candidate knows what to
-look for, they can prepare for it; which I think is totally fair.
+Given the BigTech constraints, the interview process does what it's meant for.
+It is not perfect: it sometimes leads to non-diverse candidates, folks trained
+for the interviews but not the job, companies fighting for the same population.
+However, it does fit the company constraints, and, in my experience, the result
+is pretty damn good.
-To sum up:
+Does it work for us, though? Not always, because:
+- Some may not be willing to invest that much time into job hunt. Well, that's
+ on the candidate. Do it, it's worth it.
+- The interview part, especially the full "on-site", is extremely stressful. It
+ is what it is and that is unlikely to change any time soon. But it can be
+ mitigated, as explained earlier.
+
+If you are rejected or are too stressed for a BigTech interview, but still want
+to work there:
- If you know someone at the company you want to apply to, ask for a referral.
- You can always ask me[^3] (contact details are prominent in this blog).
+ For example, you can [ask me]({{< ref "contact" >}} "Contact Page")[^3].
- Do some puzzles before the interviews. This is an investment that will pay
off; just like spending some time to [learn to
negotiate][salary-negotiation].
-- If you fail, the recruiter usually tells why. Prepare for that and do not
- hesitate to re-apply in 6-12 months.
+- If you fail, the recruiter usually tells why. Ask them when you can re-apply.
+ If you didn't ask, the usual "wait time" is 6-12 months.
+
+Hopefully you work, or will soon, in a job that suits you best. Regardless if
+it's a BigTech or not, good luck!
# Addendum: a mock interview
@@ -306,7 +343,8 @@ curious, you have one shot to attend live.
P.S. The candidates can use any programming language during the interview. Make
a wild guess which I will pick.
-Many thanks to Abhinav Gupta and Tim Miller for reading drafts of this.
+Many thanks to Abhinav Gupta, Tim Miller and Anton Lavrik for reading drafts of
+this.
[danluu-talent]: https://danluu.com/talent/
[danluu-hiring-lemons]: https://danluu.com/hiring-lemons/
@@ -322,4 +360,4 @@ Many thanks to Abhinav Gupta and Tim Miller for reading drafts of this.
[^3]: If you want to work where I work (company + location), feel free to ask
me for a referral. Keep in mind, though, that I will spend some time to
understand whether I believe you are a good fit. See the post for my
- criteria.
+ criteria. I will also buy you a coffee. Seriously; all you need to do is ask.