by wizzy » Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:44 am
app wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:16 am
wizzy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 7:32 pm
If you are already getting G interviews, then I would say the boost probably isn't there since it seems like you're good at LC. But if you're not getting interviews, then I think FB almost guarantees you an interview at G (and at FAANGMULAS/whatever the acronym is now).
i mean yeah there is some truth in correlation between g and fb interview successes.
i think for pretty much anyone in the tech industry who have worked for a long number of years, getting interview at G isn't the issue at all. almost anyone can get it from what i see. the randomness and the chaos of the process is an issue. e.g. say you've worked for 12 yrs on some technology related to developing simulator for some sort of hw platform. that code is going to likely be in c/c++ and after that length of experience you're p much a reliable engineer who can do most of the shit at g. but the interview process may have some random interviewer from a very different skillset who wouldn't care much for whatever this guy did and will have his own set of questions that he or she values. it also goes the other way, a lot of eccentric old timers at g who'd throw an unreasonable question on someone who is relatively younger or doesn't have experience with what the interviewer has.
g is very random in their interviewing, with the interviewer almost having no accountability in terms of what he writes in feedback. there is also no official 'debrief' at g. the interviewer would write or rate whatever he wishes and there would be no common discussion for him to defend or justify it. at fb, they at least have an official debrief where they're on the call together unlike g to discuss their feedback.
that said, it's only my opinion, and everyone has their own unique experiences and sure there would be people out there with a different take on it.
There's always going to be randomness with the types of questions you get asked, so luck does play a factor, but from my understanding, they still mostly have to ask questions from a pre-approved question bank. If they ask something that's banned or that HC feels like isn't an appropriate question, then their feedback can get thrown out, and you either get a chance to do an additional interview, or they can proceed with the feedback from the other interviewers.
As long as you don't get strong no hire, you can also make it through assuming you got hire / strong hire (even a couple leaning hire?) for your others. I think that interviewers are also supposed to be calibrated and that HC can question the rating when they see the type of question asked or the code submitted since interviewers are supposed to take pictures of the whiteboard (or now in covid times, the code is just saved).
I think you can argue the merits of debrief vs. no debrief, but in both cases, an outlier interview can be corrected with an outright hire or with an additional interview to get more signal. In theory, debrief could also allow an interviewer could sway a decision for better or for worse because HC is somewhat unlikely to reject a debrief decision, while HC is supposed to consist of people removed from the decisionmaking process.
I've seen it both ways with people I know rejected at FB and offered at G or rejected at G and offered at FB, so it seems like a crapshoot at a certain point with what types of questions you happened to get. Both are going to result in a bunch of false negatives.
[quote=app post_id=463436 time=1607663817 user_id=1365]
[quote=wizzy post_id=463326 time=1607646758 user_id=60]
If you are already getting G interviews, then I would say the boost probably isn't there since it seems like you're good at LC. But if you're not getting interviews, then I think FB almost guarantees you an interview at G (and at FAANGMULAS/whatever the acronym is now).
[/quote]
i mean yeah there is some truth in correlation between g and fb interview successes.
i think for pretty much anyone in the tech industry who have worked for a long number of years, getting interview at G isn't the issue at all. almost anyone can get it from what i see. the randomness and the chaos of the process is an issue. e.g. say you've worked for 12 yrs on some technology related to developing simulator for some sort of hw platform. that code is going to likely be in c/c++ and after that length of experience you're p much a reliable engineer who can do most of the shit at g. but the interview process may have some random interviewer from a very different skillset who wouldn't care much for whatever this guy did and will have his own set of questions that he or she values. it also goes the other way, a lot of eccentric old timers at g who'd throw an unreasonable question on someone who is relatively younger or doesn't have experience with what the interviewer has.
g is very random in their interviewing, with the interviewer almost having no accountability in terms of what he writes in feedback. there is also no official 'debrief' at g. the interviewer would write or rate whatever he wishes and there would be no common discussion for him to defend or justify it. at fb, they at least have an official debrief where they're on the call together unlike g to discuss their feedback.
that said, it's only my opinion, and everyone has their own unique experiences and sure there would be people out there with a different take on it.
[/quote]
There's always going to be randomness with the types of questions you get asked, so luck does play a factor, but from my understanding, they still mostly have to ask questions from a pre-approved question bank. If they ask something that's banned or that HC feels like isn't an appropriate question, then their feedback can get thrown out, and you either get a chance to do an additional interview, or they can proceed with the feedback from the other interviewers.
As long as you don't get strong no hire, you can also make it through assuming you got hire / strong hire (even a couple leaning hire?) for your others. I think that interviewers are also supposed to be calibrated and that HC can question the rating when they see the type of question asked or the code submitted since interviewers are supposed to take pictures of the whiteboard (or now in covid times, the code is just saved).
I think you can argue the merits of debrief vs. no debrief, but in both cases, an outlier interview can be corrected with an outright hire or with an additional interview to get more signal. In theory, debrief could also allow an interviewer could sway a decision for better or for worse because HC is somewhat unlikely to reject a debrief decision, while HC is supposed to consist of people removed from the decisionmaking process.
I've seen it both ways with people I know rejected at FB and offered at G or rejected at G and offered at FB, so it seems like a crapshoot at a certain point with what types of questions you happened to get. Both are going to result in a bunch of false negatives.