[nandemo]

> You also did not wear a pink and blue striped hat, and did not get an offer.

I don't understand the point of this quibbling.

Say I was asked 30 questions; I missed 3 of them and didn't get hired. It's a reasonable to assume that these 3 questions were considered important in the general assessment.

> You have to do better than the majority of candidates (maybe ~80% of candidates).

I know, I said I read your book. ;-)

But that doesn't substantially change the story, it means it's likely other candidates got the optimal solution or got closer to it.

Of course this is all based on my self-assessment, since Google doesn't provide any sort of feedback post-interview. But I'm pretty confident that I went well in the other questions. 4 out of 5 interviewers were pretty nice in giving feedback during the interview, even if indirectly. E.g. they'd ask progressively more involved questions on the same topic, so I more or less knew when I had answered the previous questions correctly.

> Additionally, you seem to assume that since (according to you) getting the optimal answer is necessary, that it must also be a sufficient condition. That's obviously false.

No, I haven't made any such assumption. I only assume that getting the optimal answer was the "high bit" in my case.

Apparently this works for Google, and unlike other people who have failed to get the grapes, I don't call them sour.

[glaak]

"Say I was asked 30 questions; I missed 3 of them and didn't get hired. It's a reasonable to assume that these 3 questions were considered important in the general assessment."

That would be true if those answers were assess on a strictly correct / incorrect basis AND those were the only things you were assessed on. Neither of those are true though in this case.

It's very possible that the questions where you didn't get an optimal answer you actually did very well on. And that there are other questions where you got the optimal answer, but it took you too long or you made too many mistakes in coding. Or you just came off as arrogant. Who knows?

I've seen many many candidates make similar assumptions to yours -- thinking they bombed specific interviews, when in fact they did very well on those. You might be correct about why you got rejected. But it's even more likely that you're wrong.

But this is absolutely true: getting the optimal solution in all interviews is not a necessary and sufficient condition.

[drivebyacct2]

You weren't just asked 30 questions. You were asked 30 questions and evaluated on dozens of other non-answer based factors.

Imagine: I walk in, get 27/30 and then proceed to be a sexist bigot who says I refuse to work on a team with gays or women and I decide to start claiming that you have to get 100% to get hired.

I'm not saying you did something like that, but you're just automatically assuming that that question was the pinnacle of your rejection and not the other things listed.

I mean, unless you've been implicitly implying that you're a perfect interviewer minus the 3/30 you missed...