November 5, 2009

Do Not Ever Apply For A Job At Google

by Choire posted @11:53 AM

WTFWe had not seen this ludicrous list of alleged Google job interview questions previously; they are floating around. They make me feel bad, beginning as they all do with "Every man in a village of 100 married couples has cheated on his wife" or "Imagine you have a closet full of shirts." I am not a problem solver. These kids have answered some for you. If this is what we have to do to get jobs in this economy, then I think homelessness is the only answer.

 
Share
DiggThis
 

41 Comments / Post a new comment

  1. Flashman [#418]

    I think you could lay down close to the spindle so the blades would spin above you. The question is, with the blender running would anybody hear your little cries for help?

  2. h_bee [#2091]

    What does it say about me that I can't answer the questions but I can find grammar errors therein?

    How many times a day *does* a clock’s hands overlap? Really, overlords?

  3. mathnet [#27]

    Wait, so what was Schwarzenegger's answer? Because he's HILARIOUS!

  4. HiredGoons [#603]

    Can I Google the answers?

  5. mathnet [#27]

    I have read them all and I still don't know if Chelsea Handler's boobs are real.

  6. KarenUhOh [#19]

    The questions are impossible because Google can't figure out a product for someone to manage.

  7. garge [#736]

    Let's all just agree not to make any jokes related to Bing.

  8. mathnet [#27]

    He's playing Monopoly, bitches!

  9. Abe Sauer [#148]

    Yes, but these miss the employment question that tells you more about Google than about yourself
    "One scene in Googled finds Brin giving a playfully fiendish assignment to a lawyer interviewing to be his corporate counsel: "I need you to draw me a contract," he says. "I need the contract to be for me to sell my soul to the devil.'"
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120056038

  10. Baboleen [#1430]

    Maybe they actually want someone who can't answer these questions.

  11. mathnet [#27]

    I still don't get the manhole cover one. :(

    • Mary HK Choi [#1469]

      it's the only shape that won't fall in on itself. like if a manhole cover was any other shape you can turn it a bit and make it fall in the manhole. not so with circles.

      • Baboleen [#1430]

        YOU'RE HIRED!!!

      • HiredGoons [#603]

        Heh, falling into man-holes, aeh.

        I AM A MATURE ADULT!!!

      • mathnet [#27]

        I think it's the perpendicular planes scenario I'm having trouble with. I mean, I don't really see how/why that would happen–a manhole cover resting somehow in a position perpendicular to the street? I mean when a manhole is open (in the movies!), the cover is laid to rest on the same plane as the street, right, just pushed aside? So I can't understand why that would be the determining factor in their design.

        Also, HEH

      • NotAndersonCooper [#158]

        If the hole is round, you can any shape for the cover as long as its minimum dimension exceeds the diameter on the hole.

      • mathnet [#27]

        Wait, what? When the manhole's closed, it has to fit flush with the street so people can drive over it and girls who are texting won't fall in, right?

      • riotnrrd [#840]

        "it’s the only shape that won’t fall in on itself"

        That's the common answer (and probably what Google are looking for) but it's not correct! With a sufficiently wide "lip", any reasonably shaped manhole cover can be made to not fall in on itself. For example, in Japan lots of manhole covers are square. I've seen triangular-ish (specifically, a Reuleaux triangle) manhole covers in Austria.

        The reason why manhole covers are round is that the hole they're covering is round. To be less tautological: the extruded shape that is strongest under compression is a cylinder; so vertical access tunnels will generally be cylindrical. Thus, it makes sense to have a cover that is closest to this shape, i.e. round.

        In short: eat me, google.

      • mathnet [#27]

        I feel mild vindication–thank you!

      • DorothyMantooth [#69]

        Whoa! I am totally hiring riotnrrd for my imaginary venture!

  12. garge [#736]

    This is giving me PTSD flashbacks of past job interviews. I once had a 2.5 hour behavioral-question-style interview for a position that was basically a remedial task sweatshop (Frederick Taylor-style benchmarks), with a hands-on practical component. It concluded with having to show my "portfolio," which demonstrated dexterity ability, to a department of 35 people.

    Also, this was a part-time job.

  13. Bittersweet [#765]

    These questions are exactly like the standard McKinsey management consulting interview, only maybe harder. Does this mean the Googlers are even bigger assholes than McKinsey-ites? Cause, you know, wow.

  14. brilliantmistake [#108]

    Cheer up, stupids. There's still hope

    "Clever Fools: Why a High IQ Doesn't Mean You're Smart"

    http://tiny.cc/Prcsm

  15. emceegee [#2133]

    I went through the whole interview process at google and it was in many ways off-putting but also quite a hoot!

    and, back then, free lunch. yum.

  16. slinkimalinki [#182]

    most of those questions can be answered with the word "shitloads".

  17. lawyergay [#220]

    I worked for a couple of years as a recruiter for a hedge fund, and we had to ask stupid shit like this. "What's one percent of one million?" was a typical go-to question. When we took references, the final question we asked was always, "Would you describe the candidate as a 'superstar'?"

 

Leave a Comment

Login Using:

Login to your account:

E-mail:
Password:

Register | Lost password?