I say that false positives in recruitment are quite bad for any company, not just Google. But I don't agree on how Google (and others) go about preventing false positives.
If Google is so worried about false positives, why don't they just ask much harder questions in interviews ?
If the hard questions are solved, Google should proceed for recruitment and reject otherwise. No candidate feels puzzled by a rejection, since they know they failed too.
I'd say the questions used by Google can be solved (or expect to be solved) by most of the CS grads coming out of top 50 world's universities and also various coding competitions/ top coder etc. The fact is that the output of those universities far exceeds what Google wants to recruit in a year. Yet Google complains on not finding enough talent !
Please learn to convert the false negatives to clear cut negatives while also preventing false positives.
Why does Google set up multi-layered committees post interview to gloss over the interview discussions (actual interviewers not included) and then take decisions based on some fuzzy undisclosed logic ?
If Google is so worried about false positives, why don't they just ask much harder questions in interviews ?
If the hard questions are solved, Google should proceed for recruitment and reject otherwise. No candidate feels puzzled by a rejection, since they know they failed too.
I'd say the questions used by Google can be solved (or expect to be solved) by most of the CS grads coming out of top 50 world's universities and also various coding competitions/ top coder etc. The fact is that the output of those universities far exceeds what Google wants to recruit in a year. Yet Google complains on not finding enough talent !
Please learn to convert the false negatives to clear cut negatives while also preventing false positives.
Why does Google set up multi-layered committees post interview to gloss over the interview discussions (actual interviewers not included) and then take decisions based on some fuzzy undisclosed logic ?