The amount of time they were putting into their “scheme” sounds brutal. I think a lot of people here could have netted more money per hour by studying up to pass a FAANG interview instead of buying lottery tickets one at a time.
My experience of that was that Google asked me to interview, I did, my recruiter congratulated me on passing the interviews and told me to expect a job offer by the end of the hiring cycle, and then at the end of the hiring cycle she informed me that, although I'd passed the interview, my interview performance was too poor to be considered for hiring.
Read the comment again. This is not a story about interview performance. My interview performance didn't change after I completed the interview.
If Google doesn't want to hire you, they won't, and your interview performance is irrelevant enough that they feel free to revise it retroactively. Perhaps they aren't willing to state their actual reasons.
Studying is not a sensible approach to this problem. You would have to address something they actually cared about.
Maybe agreeableness?
There are hundreds of teams and hiring managers in Google, and an almost infinite number of possible reasons why you weren't hired or why the HM changed their mind. Treating any large company like a monolith is not gonna help you get a job there...
Also, not sure what your recruiter was talking about - there's no concept of "passing" an interview at Google - you're rated on a scale from "strong do not hire" to "strong hire", and the folks doing the selection are provided that rating along with a ton of notes about the interviews.
and Gogel is no longer a top employer, not from career perspectives, not from learning, not from a total comp
In what world of hiring would passing an interview be considered a failing interview? If it's too poor for hire then it's a fail.
1. Weeding out the people you surely don't want... that is it answers: does this candidate meet the minimum bar for working here?
2. Providing enough information about a candidate to give them a score... that is it answers: how good is this candidate?
You can "pass" an interview - that is the answer to question 1 is "yes, this person meets our qualifications", but fail in question 2 under conditions where there are more qualified candidates than there are positions. It's really common actually to wait until there are a few qualified candidates before making a hiring decision, rather than just hiring the first person that meets the minimum standards. This bit of hedging allows for making better teams from the available hiring pipeline (on average anyway).
Unironically yes. Although it's arguably a win-win. Google constantly keeps its pipeline of candidates open which means that if you're looking for a job and you clear the resume bar, you'll get an interview. Meanwhile teams are constantly hiring so they'll want a steady stream of candidates.
The alternative would mean that unless your timing for a job search is perfect, you won't even get a foot in the door and teams within Google will also struggle to fill open positions since it would take a while to interview the candidate pool.
People still line up for their purported incentives, despite these stories.
Unfortunately that simple.
The reason why nerds nevertheless apply at MAANG companies is thus the same reason why "ordinary" people buy lottery tickets - nerds are not that different. :-)
Was not offered a job. Mildly disappointing considering the other two interviews went pretty well.
But I suspect it was the 'stick it to the Man' aspect that made him put in the effort. I'm gonna work really hard to get something for 'nothing'.
hides his Diablo2 playtime in shame
Lookup r/churning.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-dec-11-la-fi-br...
Plus, depositing several hundred thousands of dollars of cash with the bank would have triggered all sorts of mandatory reporting of the kind that usually ends up with the DEA getting involved. Kind of weird that nobody mentioned having to deal with a absolute shit ton of extra paperwork to make this "hack" viable.
But the little guy not getting away with the exploit doesn't make for a great story. It's like the infamous Hot Coffee story; people only share part of the story because they want to believe it but reality paints a very different picture. (In the Hot Coffee case, it's generally described as a the reason that tort reform is needed, but the reality is that the plaintiff suffered 3rd degree burns and only asked for $20k to cover her medical damages; McDs was the one that fought back and their own lawyers were responsible for accidentally proving that her damages were significantly higher than the amount she had asked for.)
"In the future, credit card purchases will be recorded as cash advances rather than credit card purchases."
This implies there was some period of time where those purchases weren't considered cash advances.
And given that we never heard about any of these jokers having to file reams of paperwork to get away with this hack or having long discussions with the DEA about money laundering, it's clear that the banks just treated these as cash advances like they clearly were.
Bro, saying stuff like this is why everyone hates us.