|
> there were plenty of other equally hot choices, like Yahoo That's one. And if you admit Google was a "hot" choice at the time, that already makes my point. > Google's candidates weren't "highly motivated" No? > Contrary to your assertion I'm not sure what you take my assertion to be, but let me clarify. My assertion is that if a workplace is "hot" for whatever reason -- rapid growth, high compensation, world-changing product, number of users, prestige, etc. -- then a large number of good candidates will apply there, and almost any hiring method will probably work out for them. When you talk about Google hiring only from elite CS programs, it's crucial to note that Larry and Sergey came from Stanford specifically, so of course they're going to hire people from Stanford. That's always how it goes, as I mentioned earlier with founders and early employees. Let's not pretend that's a "hiring process". It's a personal network. A number of other people from Stanford were also early Google employees. Scott Hassan, et al. They got seed money from the co-founder of Sun Microsystems. The next year, they got $25 million in VC. When I was in college in Wisconsin, there was nobody around to fund anything! Almost all of the big tech companies were built from informal personal networks, and they only institute a rigid hiring process after they're already somewhat successful. Again, any no-name company can have an ultra-high bar for hiring, but that doesn't magically attract candidates willing to apply and put themselves through hell to get hired. |