[slackingoff2017]

Pretty sad what you have to do to have a chance at getting a job these days. Is there any proof that this gets better employees? I haven't seen a shred of real scientific evidence. Is it anything more than corporate hazing?

You have to think that for each person hired probably 100 others spent months of their life preparing for the interview. What a massive waste of human effort.

[askafriend]

This isn't just any job. This is a $250-450k per year job for an engineer working on multi-billion-user scale systems/products at one of the most successful companies in the world.

Everybody and their mother wants to work at companies like Google, Facebook, Netflix, or similar. So while the preparation and interview processes can be brutal, they filter out all the people who aren't 100% serious or committed. There are many talented people that get rejected from Google routinely and that's fine - Google can't employ them all. They will be fine.

I don't see people gawking at MIT's admission standards. MIT turns down ridiculously talented and accomplished students all the time.

That being said, with enough grit, preparation, and patience, getting a job at Google isn't that crazy assuming you're good at what you do and you're willing to put in the time. It's probably far far more of a crapshoot to get into MIT.

Again, I'm not saying I agree with the way things are but I'm trying to help put them in context for you. Not every job pays $250-450k and not every job is Google.

[zerr]

> I don't see people gawking at MIT's admission standards. MIT turns down ridiculously talented and accomplished students all the time.

Well, MIT or any other university has a limited number of free seats which is not true for Google I believe - I don't think they have a problem with the desk space for engineers, also considering their open space hell, or at least the desk space (limit) is not the reason of not hiring someone, I hope :)

[askafriend]

Fair point. There's nothing that indicates that they're having any trouble filling seats though. Maybe they could hire faster but I don't think hiring is the bottleneck for their business. They probably would rather go slowly and carefully at their size anyway. I also don't really see any reason why they're not in a great hiring position as an employer already - especially compared to their industry peers.

[ajeet_dhaliwal]

Every Google engineer makes a minimum of $250k? Glassdoor doesn’t suggest this. Do you know this to be true?

[askafriend]

Yes, if you're in the Bay Area and work for Google as a mid level engineer your total compensation is at least $250k a year. Closer to 200k a year for new grads fresh out of School who have 0 experience.

Look at my other reply. This is incredibly common at the top companies in the Bay Area or any other major city (Seattle, NYC, etc).

[ajeet_dhaliwal]

He hasn’t said what city or even country this is in. We can’t just assume it’s a $250k + salary give the job could be in the UK, Germany, Canada and knows where else where salaries are lower in general for software engineers.

[askafriend]

You're absolutely right. However a lot of the engineering is concentrated in a few major centers so there's a good chance he's near a major city like LA/SF/NYC/Seattle/etc

Even if the office is in a low cost of living city, the effect is similar with Google paying at the high end of the cost-adjusted band.

The point was more to illustrate that it's not just any average job and they can do things that work for them that don't work for a lot of other businesses.

[zerr]

Where did you get such numbers? H1B data and Glassdoors show significantly less.

[askafriend]

Those numbers are wrong and outdated. Every mid level engineer at Google is pulling near 250k at least in total compensation and up to $450k depending on experience and expertise. By total compensation I mean Base + Stock + Yearly Bonus + Signing Bonus. And that's not even factoring in the stock growth. Keep in mind the stock is as good as cash since it's very liquid.

Yes people make this much money. Yes they make it a couple years out of school. No I'm not lying or making this up. Yes this only represents a tiny tiny portion of engineers globally that have the privilege of working somewhere like Google and in a place like the Bay Area.

I swear, this conversation happens every single time on HN when people bring up comp numbers.

I know the salary ranges at nearly all major valley companies, have friends that work at all of these companies, and have gotten offers myself.

[zerr]

H1B data is official and updated - including this year. But for Bay Area, yes, 250K sounds realistic. I can't imagine someone wanted to move there for less.

> I know the salary ranges at nearly all major valley companies

Can you comment on Netflix? They say that they significantly outbid Google or FB... So e.g. 500-600K is the norm there?

[askafriend]

I’m not sure about H1B status or how that impacts comp.

Netflix does outbid Google and Facebook routinely in one key component: base cash salary. I think you can request a portion of this in stock but the default is cash.

So you’d get $350k handed to you straight cash versus the traditional approach of base + stock + other variable components like bonuses, performance based comp and refresher stock. The 500-600k numbers you’re suggesting are not realistic for an average mid level engineer though.

But in general, Netflix’s comp philosophy is a complete outlier in the Silicon Valley ecosystem. Might be more common in hedge fund or quant roles but I don’t know much about that world.

[wutbrodo]

> Is there any proof that this gets better employees? I haven't seen a shred of real scientific evidence. Is it anything more than corporate hazing?

Hiring is super hard, and anyone who tells you they have a surefire, simply-articulable description of what interview characteristics guarantee a good employee is lying to you. So given that unrealistically high bar, sure, there's no guarantee that this "works".

But it definitely extends beyond "corporate hazing". I've done hiring both within Google (interview + HCs) and outside of Google, and while I had to drastically (_drastically_) lower my standards for some of the post-Google hiring (due to crappy candidate pools, usually), the general principle remained the same: these kind of questions provide me valuable info about the intelligence of the hire and this has been _incredibly_ predictive of their productivity in the medium- and long-term. Note that I'm not talking about by-rote memorization of drop-in solutions: when I get the sense that the candidate knows the solution by heart, I mentally "drop the data point". Though I usually have fairly complex, multi-part algorithms/whiteboard coding questions and seeing how people react to mistakes being pointed out, changes in the structure, etc has been very useful.

I've told this story before on HN, but there was a company I was employee #1 at where our next two hires were 1) a guy with no engineering experience (he know how to program) but who I could tell was smart and good at creative problem-solving, and 2) a guy with 10 years of engineering experience, good references, and an interview that gave me the impression that he was dumb as a brick.

We hired #1 with my recommendation and #2 against my strong negative recommendation. #1 needed a month or two of onboarding guidance by me to learn most of the basic conscientious habits of being a good engineer; he ended up by far our best employee (excluding me, the senior engineer). With a tiny fraction of the engineering experience of the other two, he was (after me), the go-to guy to understand any part of the system or investigate any breakage. By contrast, my founder bounced #2 around from task to task, trying to find somewhere he could be productive without horribly breaking things (legends say he's still searching...). I literally can't think of a single task that he handled even competently, let alone impressively.

I had a similar experience at Google with a math PhD reportee who struggled really hard upon joining Google, but after a couple months of my mentorship, was IMO one of the better engineers on the team (it was a research/engineering team, so creative problem-solving counted for even more).

It's simply not that difficult to learn the habits and discipline required for good engineering: ability to manipulate logical structures easily, think critically, and problem-solve creatively is IMO infinitely more valuable and infinitely harder to create out of thing air. As much as people gnash their teeth about how algorithms interview questions don't resemble day-to-day work, I've found them to provide a LOT of predictive power for eventual productivity and quality of employee.

[askafriend]

That's an interesting set of experiences to draw from. Thanks for sharing!