Talking to Googlers nowadays, I think the bar for who gets to be a Googler has dropped significantly, but assumptions of prestige from without have not changed over time. Googlers are just people and now that their hiring standards have shifted we can expect to see even Google making junior-level mistakes.
More likely that Google engineers are in a bubble because of all the available internal tools. Also the interview process nowadays select people that have time to train for the interviews rather than good engineers. The Google interview is still hard, but not for the same reasons than in early 2010.
This. Their interview process selects people who have hundreds of hours to blow to practice on stupid competitive coding, aka LeetCode. These aren't people who are innovative, they're ones that know how to grind.
Same process used by Amazon, Meta, etc. And then they wonder why there's no more innovation at any of these places.
Googles strategy is to find innovative people who can code well, but it's way easier and faster to determine the latter. So they hire a TON of people with these interviews and then wait for the sharp and innovative ones to float up while the not so innovative ones stay at L4.
Whether that is working or not is harder to say, but i can at least say that high level googlers have all been quite good in my experience
That’s not it. Googlers were good when Google was a startup with a high bar of entry trying to change things. Nowadays Google is a prestigious company. They are attractive to people who are first and foremost looking for a prestige job and don’t get me wrong they can be quite good but generally that’s not very interesting people.
"You can divide our industry into two kinds of people: those who want to go work for a company to make it successful, and those who want to go work for a successful company." —jwz
> I think the bar for who gets to be a Googler has dropped significantly, but assumptions of prestige from without have not changed over time.
The former is obviously true, if you go back far enough. Aiming for concentrating talent, the bar you can set if you need 10-20-30 engineers a year is wildly different than what you can do if you need thousands. Same applies at team level; it's possible to put together a top world-class team of 10 people, a struggle to put together 100, and beyond that order probably not going to happen, for a host of reasons.
The latter though, doesn't seem to be true at all. I don't think I know anyone in tech who holds google technically in the same regard they were held in 15 years ago as an organization. Individual teams, sure.
I think the problem is Google is significantly less productive with their thousands of incompetents than they used to be their their dozens of professionals.
Google does not need thousands of engineers, they simply don't have enough financial pressure to stop themselves from hiring dead weight.
Google's organization is often described as "thousands of startups under the same roof". So each team has ownership over their product(s) and each team has the room for advocacy for their product. But if their product is deemed unprofitable or whatever by higher-ups, I assume they start experiencing pressure about that. Ultimately though I'm sure budget concerns is king, and if a SVP needs to hit some quota for revenue or whatever and your product is relatively niche then they may be able to make the argument that your time is better spent working on something more "productive".
