Having read the article, only 54% of Googlers view their compensation is better than what they could get from another company. I find it surprising. Who else pays more than Google does? Can only think of Facebook, but even then not sure.
I used to work at another BigCorp (around $150,000/yr) and really thought Google pays competitively, but boy was I wrong. Here are two offers that I received recently:
1. Small company: around $160,000/yr + equity
2. Google: no exact number but I was told that for the level I was approved, the base is around $120,000/yr. Apparently my coding skills on a Google doc were equivalent to that of a new grad and they are really trying to low-ball me. Somehow they are under the assumption that I'm "dying" to work there.
If you interview at Google make sure to have other competing offers, otherwise you'll be up for a surprise. Also remember that although they'll tell you that the hiring committee looks at a candidate holistically, only the onsite interviews will dictate your level and the compensation. They don't seem to care what products you've built previously, years of experience, or education. How you code in a Google doc is what seems to matter.
Is there a better way of making sure someone can actually code? It’s easy to take credit for past projects when it’s unclear how much help you had or what part you played. Isn’t the best way to judge a candidate asking them to create/produce something for you?
- A non-trivial take-home exercise and give them a week or two to complete. This should have higher weight on the decision instead of the "Google doc coding" as most likely that's the type of code they'll be shipping to production.
- Use the onsite interviews to improve upon the exercise and/or to get into the nitty gritty details, and also to make sure this is the type of person people would enjoy working with.
- Allow candidates to run the code and to look things up (even Einstein didn't remember how to do long division, he looked it up).
- Give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they are not liars or thieves. If you end up having certain doubts, ask yourself why you have those doubts and take appropriate steps to remove doubts.
And let's be real. Do you think someone with X years of experience having worked at multiple companies (small and big corps) was hired because they couldn't code?
> even Einstein didn't remember how to do long division, he looked it up
Nitpick: the idea that Einstein struggled with school-level mathematics is a myth[1]. I would be very surprised if he ever had to look up the procedure for long division.
I personally hate take home tests that you aren’t compensated for, but I see your point. As to your last point, depends on your definition of “couldn’t code”. I think we tend to give the hiring and HR at companies like google too much credit. Things still slip through the cracks, especially at an organization of that size.
One thing I do with take-home exercises after I'm done interviewing with a company is adapting them and then open-sourcing them (obviously removing identifying information about the company). This has really helped me and I have more side projects to show later on. With that said, I've gone above and beyond with the implementation of these exercises so typically many of them are worth open-sourcing.
People can cheat on take home exercises. At the scale of google, a nontrivial number of people will.
If you'll end up having to do a face to face analysis to make sure someone didn't cheat on a big take home assignment like that, why not just skip to the face to face analysis?
I think it's more a reflection of thinking that if a lot of employees complain that they're not paid well, maybe the company will increase their salaries in response. But there's no potential benefit at all to claiming that the pay is good (regardless of whether it is or not).
Netflix (which from my understanding just pays very high salaries but minimal stock or stock you buy at discount)? also a lot of people that are boasting of high comp have high comp because the value of the stock they were initially granted increased over time with rising stock prices. Will be very very curious to see how total comp numbers trend during a recession.
Lot of SV based companies compensate quite generously. The competition for good talent in SV is immense. When there's money on the table, companies _will_ fork it up.
Netflix, or Amazon if you're really top-tier, maybe LinkedIn or Apple (counting RSU packages). There are a good handful of companies that are offering sky high comp right now.
Even if Google has the highest medium/average salary (which is so not true), still not necessarily means other companies won't pay much higher to an individual.
The facts that so many "former Google employees" out there and people left Google in like 4 years on average also hint it.
As many people already indicated, even not FAANG, many smaller companies are generous.
Salesforce pays me much more than what Google talked to me about, So this isn't true. MSFT also was pretty close the SF offer for me as well. I also have friends at Netflix and they make much more than what Google offered them. I'm in Security so it may be different for Devs.
I think Netflix does and I believe it’s all cash unlike the cash/stock split that google does. I got that from levels.fyi so not sure how accurate the information is.
Many smaller companies do. If you can lead and multiply the existing staff you can earn more. The downside is that you have limited runway and might have to hop around.
