Google seems to be able to figure out smart folks in 5-6 hours with pretty high accuracy.
So many smart people apply to Google that they could (at least historically--maybe it's different now) get away with a hiring process optimized for false negatives over false positives. This is only fair, but also probably makes them a poor example as far as hiring practices go.
So yes: they can figure out if you're smart in 5-6 hours. But they can't do the converse reliably.
That means a lot of smart people never get the opportunity to try out for the interview. In my opinion, you have to market yourself better and differently if you want to increase the odds of getting to the interview, where you get a chance to prove yourself beyond what is on paper.
On a general note, is there any company that tries to extract patterns out of their employees performance track records; like a feedback loop into their interview process?
I know about people with no college education being interviewed at google
You can blame google for having a broken interview process but it appears 99% of their assessment comes from the interview and it really doesn't matter if your major is in pet grooming or math
Edit 'cause I can't answer: Not "friend of a friend" account, but directly from the concerned person
'"99% of their assessment comes from the interview." Indeed, it's the very opposite since the interview is not where you show that you can |excel in multiple areas."'
I don't believe you are familiar with the Google selection process. The importance of academic achievement (for engineering positions especially) is underrated by google.
You may shine in academia, if you don't get almost a perfect score in the interview you're out.
You said they were interviewed. You didn't say if they were hired. If they weren't hired then was it partially due to a bias against people without a college degree?
You also said "know of", which means this is a friend-of-a-friend account, with bearing on the usefulness of that information for this question.
Better would be a pointer to http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/07/so-you-want-to-... where someone who was on a Google hiring committee "acknowledges that the 3.7-or-higher-GPA myth is widespread, but she discounts it." and says "Academia is merely one way to distinguish yourself, and there are plenty of others. So if your GPA, or your school, doesn't stand out, look for additional avenues. Besides, you'll need to excel in multiple areas to get your resume selected."
I read this as saying that good grades from a good college help, because it's one of the ways to show that you excel in an area. This also implies that excelling in college is one possible indicator on success in working at Google.
That's very different than saying that "99% of their assessment comes from the interview." Indeed, it's the very opposite since the interview is not where you show that you can |excel in multiple areas."
They were in the early days, but it doesn't seem to matter anymore. Some regular posters to HN are Google employees void of any college degrees. The change indicates to me that their attempts to filter by education was failing them, which is interesting in itself.