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.