On 10/14/06, 0x0000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, I'm not out to rain on anyones parade, and some of you (that don't know > me) will probably think this is just "sour grapes", but I really think the > pie-in-the-sky picture Google paints is deserves a little counter-point - I > interviewed for google back in 1994 based off a message to this list, and I > would like to make a couple points about the experience and the company as I > percieved it: > > Google made several claims about the position, initally; first that it was > to staff a data center in Ireland - I don't know if that was actually true, > but that claim evaporated for (what became) obvious, to me) reasons - > specifically, they found themselves "unable" to set up a tele-conference > between Mountain View and Grand Rapids, MI - a situation I found almost > funny, given the kinds of resouces Google has a their disposal, and the fact > that I personal a) located 2 seperate teleconference facilities for them, and > - when they declined to avail themselves of either of those, offered to > simply set up netmeeting (or even just IM) w/ full audio/video from my hotel, > there. Apparently they don't use netmeeting (or any of the Linux > alternatives) or IM. In fact, I got the distinct impression the recruiter > didn't know what I was talking about. Of course, this was pre-Google Talk... > > They wanted me to fly to Mountain View - which I did - but they declined to > get me a first class ticket - even if I paid the difference in fare. This > was annoying to me, since a) I hate to fly commercial, anyway (being a > smoker, and not liking airport crowds), and b) I'm a big guy and those coach > seats are made for people about half my size. > > The hotel in - I think it was San Jose - the selected for me - and they did > select it - I had no option, here, despite the fact that I know people in > that area I could have stayed with - the hotel was really cute - that's the > only word for it - it was a "boutique hotel" (self-admitted) and I had to pay > for it - Google were supposed to re-imbuse me, but to this day they have not. > > The hotel had a minibar and so on, but no room service, and everything in the > room (it was already stocked) cost about twice what the same item would have > if I had bought it at the convenience store across the street. The hotel > charged me for several bottles of Coke (or maybe it was Pepsi) which I did > not drink (I don't drink colas - haven't for for the last 10 years) and never > took them off the bill, and didn't refund my credit card. The hotel did > have what I maintain is absolutely the most comfortable bed I have slept in > since the days of grandma's feather bed when I was a child, but I would not > have paid that kind of money just to sleep in it... > > So Google still owes me around $300 (two nights) for the hotel bill in San > Jose which they were supposed to "re-imburse" - as well as some $140 or so > the cab and limo fares to and from the airport, etc - note that it's a lot > easier to get a limo in San Jose than a cab, and it costs about the same, > apparently. > > Then there was the campus - not bad, but definitely not "all that" as it has > been portrayed e.g. in magazines - I have worked in any number of places as > nice, and the chef quit - he was not there when I got there, and quit shortly > after they didn't hire me .... hmmm. So the food might be free, but it's not > what it once was. Also, I wasn't even there long enough to eat ... perhaps > they just didn't like the way I looked - I am almost 50 - I was definitely > the oldest person I saw while I was there. They may not admit to an age > bias, but I am convinced there is one. I also wore my normal working attire > (jeans, high-tops, shirt, and a jacket) - I didn't feel under-dressed > compared to the employees, but many of the other interviewees were college or > just post-college age, and were wearing suits that had to have cost more than > my entire wardrobe combined. > > The people I met were polite enough - except for the interviewers. They were > a) cocky, and b) not as bright as they seemed to think they were, imo - this > could be written off to "programmer ego", but in my experience (software > engineering in the aerospace field) the really good programmers (and h/w > guys) don't have a degree of humility not typically found in college-boy > "hacker" wannabe types. I was not just un-impressed with the people they had > doing the interviews, I was actually surprised to find that they were such > run-of-the-mill IT types. In fact, a couple of them I developed a strong > anitpathy for just during the course of the interviews. They clearly were > looking for chair-warmers - people who would not threaten their shiny new > Google-positions - and were more interested in yes-men and ass-kissers than > in e.g. someone who was interested in contributing to pushing Google's stock > price even higher, and pushing their coolness factor off the scale. > > In short, they didn't like me either - it had become clear that they were not > planning to use me to staff the new data center in Ireland even if they had > hired me (they wanted people who wanted to live in Mountain View - something > that is out of the question for me, since I remain a diehard cigarette > smoker), and the word I got back from the recruiter after I got back to MI > was that the interviewers had "had a meeting" and concluded that I "lacked > depth" - which I consider one of the most assinine, inane, and yes just plain > stoopid remarks I've ever gotten from an interviewer in 20-some-odd years of > interviewing. > > So they didn't just waste my time, they cost me around $500 just to tell me > something I can hear from any high-school guidance counselor or homeless bum > on a street-corner. I am not happy with Google, despite their neat toys and > mad stock price, and am quite certain that their "don't be evil" slogan has > already been corrupted - it's only a matter of time until the rot begins to > show thru. ... > > In any case, they definitely seem to have a preference for youth, and - > while I do understand that they probably have quotas to meet - I felt > strongly that the fact that I was white, male, a smoker, have long hair and a > beard, and don't wear business suits, all worked against me. It seemed a > very "corporate" corporate culture, regardless of what you may have heard. I > do not feel that my technical competence was even considered - an idea I feel > continues to be borne out daily as I continue to find contract work in fields > far more technically demanding than anything Google has even considered. > Note that the interviewers literally declined to talk about things like IPv6, > BitTorrent as a data distribution protocol, etc. That is: when asked about > my own thoughts, those are things that I brought up and they simply passed > them over and basically said "but what do you *really* want to do?" > Posuers, was my overall impression, technically, and the non-technical part > of the trip just left a bad taste in my mouth. > > Based on this experience, I would not reccomend Google as an employer to any > geek. As a practicing geek, I just felt insulted and belittled - and they > didn't even do insults very well, imo. It didn't help that they went out of > their way to tell me what an honour it was just to be interviewed. After > all, I do interviews all the time (several a year, at least) and don't have > to put up with that kind of crap. And I will re-iterate, the technical part > of the interview was minimal - pretty much anyone who has set up a linux home > network could have aced it. This isn't about technical skills, it's about > image. Google is after a particular image, and "Geek" is not it, imo. > > So there. > > Btw, I figure Eater is probably the exception that proves the rule - he does > seem a bit geeky in the photos, but I'm betting he's the *only* one they have > working for them... probably hired him to provide CNN with photo ops... > "... and this is our geek" :D > > >
Hey, we don't wear suits! -- http://eater.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CHAOS706.ORG" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/chaos706 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
