Behavioral interviewing is based on the concept that the best predictor of future performance is past performance. Interviewers who use behavioral interviewing ask for specific examples of past behaviors/actions in order to draw conclusions about how a candidate would perform in a similar situation in their organization. So, they use this behavioral based interview which IDs people with experience(experts) and later they say they do not want to hire an expert, but the smartest person they can. They may have a problem with their definition. I think they are looking for creative people, more than just "smart" or "book smart" people. Creative people are able to see connections where others do not. Their interview process is not out of the box thinking. Maybe they should structure the interview to id creative minds?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is saying that Google's hiring strategy is working out very well?

Name 1 product they have launched, after Google search w/ Adwords, where they have made money on?

Google must be doing something right as its stock has doubled from $600 to $1200+ in just two years. It also ranks usually the #1 company for recent college grads in terms of employment desirability.

PP - You must work at MSFT.

Sure, stock price is doing nice. This is a function of Google hiring the right people?

Hmm. Maybe this article applies to coders, such that they are looking for skilled coders rather than those with good pedigree.

However, when I interviewed with Google a short time ago for a legal position, I was repeatedly asked about my grades (college, graduate school, high school!) and was proudly told by the interviewers that the company only hires the best/brightest, and that everyone who works at the company is expected to be at the top of their respective fields. Other people I have talked to who have interviewed in other fields (marketing and sales) have had similar experiences.

It sounds like google has many more applicants than they can possibly use and need to have different criteria for hiring than a regular company. Although the ideas are interesting -- and something I have wondered about when the education system seems so rote.

And now we are informed that your SATs don't predict academic success.

We've been had.

I've read some from Google employees that this is, in fact, not their practice, that they are typically obsessed with university prestige and performance, and that trying to get non-college grads hired is a nightmare because of the culture.

Oh and the fact that everyone who works for Google lets you know it inside of a minute upon meeting them.

Anonymous wrote:A high GPA means you can remember someone else's data and regurgitate it. Yippee.

And... pay attention to details, turn things in one time, follow directions, manage projects efficiently...

I'd rather have a neurosurgeon who got high grades than low grades, in all honesty.

A high GPA means you can remember someone else's data and regurgitate it. Yippee.

Not all companies are Google. We're small but still need good technical staff. I was just at a job fair (for technical positions) and looking for May 2014 grads. Unless the candidate had a really impressive project or other experience, their resume got tossed if it was below 3.25. If they didn't put GPA on it, I asked and wrote it down. I did talk to every person that came up and asked about their classes (since I've taken the same ones 10 years ago) and other interests so there was a chance to stand out in other ways too but the gpa is a first hoop.
In my field, after your first full time job, the grades matter so much less as it becomes all about what you actually know how to do.

Anonymous wrote:Who is saying that Google's hiring strategy is working out very well?

Name 1 product they have launched, after Google search w/ Adwords, where they have made money on?

Google's strategy isn't to make money off of their products. It's to get more people online and keep people online. The theory is that if people are online, they'll use Google, and Google will make money that way. So for instance, Glass keeps people online by putting the Internet right on their face; Google Drive would enable people to be online while in their cars; Loon expands broadband access to hard-to-reach areas.

He is right when he calls college an "extended adolescence" for many. $60,000 a year to spend 4 years binge drinking does not help you grow up. "Extended adolescence" is the work hard party hard culture.

Anonymous wrote:Who is saying that Google's hiring strategy is working out very well?

Name 1 product they have launched, after Google search w/ Adwords, where they have made money on?

Google must be doing something right as its stock has doubled from $600 to $1200+ in just two years. It also ranks usually the #1 company for recent college grads in terms of employment desirability.

PP - You must work at MSFT.

Who is saying that Google's hiring strategy is working out very well?

Name 1 product they have launched, after Google search w/ Adwords, where they have made money on?

Interesting story--thank for posting. Am a strong believer that learning how to deal with failure at an early age (which implies failing at something at an early age) is really key to future success.

Here's a interesting article about what skills Google looks for in applicants.

As parents push their kids to look good on paper, (high grades and impressive extracurricular activities) do kids lack skills U.S. corporations want?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/opinion/sunday/friedman-how-to-get-a-job-at-google.html?_r=0