Its not. There rejection rate is higher, though. Still, a person who gets into Harvard is more likely to also get into Google than vice versa.
Google gets more applications per open position, so they also have to reject more. Lots of people think "Why not give it a shot and apply at Google." Very few think the same about Harvard. Also, I would say it takes more effort to apply to a university. They will require essays, SAT/GRE and letters of recommendations for a valid application.
I applied to Harvard as a "why not give it a shot?" It involved ticking an additional box on the Common Application and paying an additional $25 or so. I needed the essays, letters of recommendations, SAT, etc. anyway, to apply to other schools. Harvard had no additional requirements besides them. (Amherst and Dartmouth, however, required additional essays. I ended up giving up on the Dartmouth supplement because I couldn't be arsed to finish it, then have them nag me for another 2 months about my uncompleted application before I finally told them that no, I didn't actually want to apply.)
Not really true at all. Having no degree at all may present an obstacle in entering the interview process if you don't have strong experience to make up for it. But once you've entered the process as a candidate, the type or lack of degree will have absolutely no bearing on whether or not you're given an offer. It may be used past the decision phase when the hiring committee is deciding how to level you, but if so that will only be meaningful if they're slotting you for the first two levels or so.
Everything becomes easier with a degree, doubly so with a degree from a top university. But they only use that as a factor in deciding who to interview; all they care about when deciding who to hire is interview performance. Someone without a degree should be optimizing their search by convincing hiring managers or employees to refer them into the process directly, thereby short circuiting the recruiters.
Have you considered the possibility that a degree from a top university could influence an interviewer's report of the candidate's technical proficiency?
During one interview I had at Google, I stumbled when performing addition on base 64 numbers.
Since I don't have a degree, it seems likely that interviewer will write that I have a conceptual deficiency with numeric bases and mathematics.
If I had a degree from CMU and gave an identical performance, they might instead write that I was rusty with numeric bases.
There's also the fact that most of the interviewers have a degree, many from a top 10 university. Hiring people that match their own profile validates their own background which benefits their career, so a self-interested and rational interviewer should rightly tend to give more positive ratings to people with degrees, ideally from institutions similar to theirs.
I think this is relevant at every stage of the interview process. If you sound nervous and don't have a degree, they might think you have a mental disorder, whereas if you have a degree from CMU they might just think that you don't want to disappoint your family.
I feel disadvantaged at every stage of the interview process for not having a degree. I'm sure there's no moment where someone is consciously docking me points or arguing against me with specific reference to the lack of degree. But I do think it's heavily influencing how academic types perceive me, and what they write about me in their report.
This will vary widely based on job function: it may be true for engineers, but it's not true for marketing. From what I hear, at Facebook and google, if you apply for a marketing job, You absolutely don't stand a chance unless you've come from a top 10 school or ivy leage school
Only true for recent grads (2-3 years after college). Google itself (and ex-googlers) say degree doesn't matter for job applicants with some work experience.
> Not just men! Men, Women, and everything in between.
fella (fel·la)
- nonstandard spelling of fellow, used in representing speech in various dialects.
So we follow 'fellow':
fellow (fel·low)
- a person in the same position, involved in the same activity, or otherwise associated with another.
And so we can conclude that this is completely fine. It can easily be reasoned that the GP was using it to refer to a generic group of individuals not just a single gender. By you drawing attention to it when it was a proper usage of the word, actually does more harm than good to your cause.
> Nearly every usage of "fella" I've heard has implied that it referred to a male.
Neat, and I've heard it implied multiple times to refer to generic groups of people, in US English as well too just like you. The thing though we need to consider is definitions, facts, sentence context, and even the auhtor's intent much more heavily then both of our personal experiences.
It can easily be argued based on context that the author's intent was to refer to a group of people generically, they even used the "nonstandard" and generic version of the word.
Not sure what dictionary you used, but this sounds highly irregular to me as a native UK English speaker. I've never heard of "fella" being used to refer to anything but someone of male gender.
That said, clearly our experiences and interpretations differ.
There is no right or wrong here. As such I dont think we can easily reason that they were using it to refer to generic group at all as clearly there is confusion and different interpretations of the word. Using "fellas" to address colleagues in an email (for example) that includes non-males may lead you to inadvertently offending people who share my interpretation of the word.
I think it would be better for everyone to just use non-gendered terms in the first place to avoid this sort of confusion and potential to give offense (e.g. "guys" is another loaded term: some people think it is non-gendered, whilst others think it is strongly-gendered - as such probably best avoided in a lot of situations).
Some alternative options that are non-gendered could have been "people", "applicants", or "potential employees" (and for the "hi guys"/"hi fellas" email opening you can just do "hi all" or "hi everyone")
That's actually not a bad thing in my book.
When I was at the beginning of my career, the fact that most companies completely disregard any non-work-related experience was extremely frustrating to me. I'd been tinkering with computers my whole life, working on stuff far above and beyond your average "just learned it in class" folks, and it was all irrelevant unless qualified by work experience.
Of course today its commonplace to show off your "hobby-based experience" to employers via a Github page and F/OSS contributions, but back then it wasn't.
So, sure, they were fine with hobby experience. But only if backed by solid CS chops.