Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Goldman Sachs are often cited as having very difficult interview processes, with some having failure rates as high as eighty-percent. Critics argue that analytic ability cannot be fairly judged in such a compartmentalized way, and that the difficulty of the interviews should be much less rigorous if the companies should hope to find the best candidates. Proponents argue that a rigorous interviewing process yields the best and brightest candidates, leading to a strong company culture in the long run.
I take the latter viewpoint. At my current company, the interview process was not very difficult. The longer I stay here, the more I realize I am surrounded by people who wouldn't cut it in reputable organizations. They are boring, uninspiring and non-productive. They are what I like to call the "paycheck-class." I am sick of carrying dead-weight and having to kiss-ass like I respect them. I don't. They pay me well for what I do, but I have little satisfaction otherwise. I can outperform most of them in all areas, and I seriously wonder sometimes if they even know enough to qualify their positions. I recently took part in another interview. The hiring manager didn't even bother to probe the applicant's thinking process one bit.
Companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Goldman Sachs are often cited as having very difficult interview processes, with some having failure rates as high as eighty-percent. Critics argue that analytic ability cannot be fairly judged in such a compartmentalized way, and that the difficulty of the interviews should be much less rigorous if the companies should hope to find the best candidates. Proponents argue that a rigorous interviewing process yields the best and brightest candidates, leading to a strong company culture in the long run.
I take the latter viewpoint. At my current company, the interview process was not very difficult. The longer I stay here, the more I realize I am surrounded by people who wouldn't cut it in reputable organizations. They are boring, uninspiring and non-productive. They are what I like to call the "paycheck-class." I am sick of carrying dead-weight and having to kiss-ass like I respect them. I don't. They pay me well for what I do, but I have little satisfaction otherwise. I can outperform most of them in all areas, and I seriously wonder sometimes if they even know enough to qualify their positions. I recently took part in another interview. The hiring manager didn't even bother to probe the applicant's thinking process one bit.
It sounds like you are over-qualified in your current company, you better look for other more high-quality company....
Given how Goldman Sachs ran themselves off a cliff and needed a Bail-out at the taxpayer's expense to survive, I'm not sure they have any right to claim how their difficult interview process proves they are a better company.
As for the rest, a lot of it also comes down to the number of applicants. Big companies naturally get more than smaller companies, so they need more tools to weed people out and hopefully find the right people for the job. Interviews can be part of this process, but difficulty alone doesn't mean much unless somebody can produce valid metrics that proves that the difficult interview does produce better hires. Keep in mind that Google and Microsoft are huge companies with vast resources at their disposal, so a lot more goes into their success than the quality of people alone.
Finally, there's a difference between a challenging interview and one riddled with games and absurdity. I think Google used to be infamous for crud like that - bombarding candidates with questions like: how many pizza shops are in New York City? If you were a tiny person trapped in a blender, how would you escape? If you had to be a crayon color, what color would you be and why? If I also recall, at some point they stopped that nonsense since they couldn't prove it achieved anything other than ticking off interview candidates.
Results matter, and correlation is not causation when it comes to many things, including interview difficulty and company success.
Companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Goldman Sachs are often cited as having very difficult interview processes, with some having failure rates as high as eighty-percent. Critics argue that analytic ability cannot be fairly judged in such a compartmentalized way, and that the difficulty of the interviews should be much less rigorous if the companies should hope to find the best candidates. Proponents argue that a rigorous interviewing process yields the best and brightest candidates, leading to a strong company culture in the long run.
I take the latter viewpoint. At my current company, the interview process was not very difficult. The longer I stay here, the more I realize I am surrounded by people who wouldn't cut it in reputable organizations. They are boring, uninspiring and non-productive. They are what I like to call the "paycheck-class." I am sick of carrying dead-weight and having to kiss-ass like I respect them. I don't. They pay me well for what I do, but I have little satisfaction otherwise. I can outperform most of them in all areas, and I seriously wonder sometimes if they even know enough to qualify their positions. I recently took part in another interview. The hiring manager didn't even bother to probe the applicant's thinking process one bit.
I agree with what is bolded. I now work for an advertising agency that works on website design and launches marketing initiatives for hotels. Part of my interview process was to write copy for one of their hotels' newsletters as well as a page on their website. Was I applying for a Copywriter position? No. But, the task showed my creativity, and allowed me to really get to know what the company did. It was a challenging assignment, but still fun nonetheless. It gave me a sneak peek as to what would come if hired, as I now often write copy for my clients. So, I agree that the steps should be rigorous (but also RELATED) to the job description. I wouldn't make people climb through hoops and be extra difficult just for the sake of being difficult.
It can be true in some sense but it also depends on the dept you are in.. my current role, my interview was a breeze. Very laid back. It almost didn't feel like an interview though I treated it as one (always). My colleagues in my dept are some of the most hard-working. As for myself, I take advantage at how laid back the environment is (lol) but I'm the type that always get my work done no matter what.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 37,112,957 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123
Given how Goldman Sachs ran themselves off a cliff and needed a Bail-out at the taxpayer's expense to survive, I'm not sure they have any right to claim how their difficult interview process proves they are a better company.
It shows they are a brilliant company. They privatized the profits, publicized the risks, and are making bank once again with huge profits. Brilliant.
It shows they are a brilliant company. They privatized the profits, publicized the risks, and are making bank once again with huge profits. Brilliant.
From a certain point of view, yes - but if that's really what they were aiming for, their interviews should have included tests such as: helping a little old lady cross a street while stealing her purse, and scamming a relative out of his or her home.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
