To be fair the ones who do succeed in those FAANG interviews are probably pretty smart, good under pressure and know algorithms / data structures very well. I'd have a hard time passing these interviews even with a lot of preparation - I don't excel under pressure nor do I have the will to prepare for those interviews for months (which is what it would take for me to reach 'FAANG' level interview taking and I'm being generous here, it could take me more than months). The vast majority of candidates are like me - some combination of time constraints and lack of superior intelligence will prevent them for excelling in those interviews or even trying. I'm just not in the top 2% of devs in terms of intelligence and am not particularly great in charming my way into an offer, nor am I a member of a protected group / DEI.
So knowing my chances are low to begin with I'm pretty much fine with deciding FAANG is not very realistic for me.
The vast majority of candidates are like me - some combination of time constraints and lack of superior intelligence will prevent them for excelling in those interviews or even trying.The vast majority of candidates are like me - some combination of time constraints and lack of superior intelligence will prevent them for excelling in those interviews or even trying.
Surely that's an attitude thing more than a true limitation? Just because the hill is steeper for you doesn't mean you can't still get to the top.
Could be. Or it could be I'm just being realistic about my abilities - I mean statistically the vast majority of candidates don't make it to FAANG, you have less than a 1% chance of getting an offer. Even if you try all of them that's not great odds - 5%. Even doing this rotation twice, still not great - 10%.
Now sure, you can make the odds work better for you by preparing more than the others, but there will be at least a few dozen other candidates that know this just as well as you do and will cram for these interviews just as hard. What are the chances you're smarter / better prepared / better interviewee than all of them?
I'm sure there are many candidates who studies hard, are reasonably intelligent and just can't make the cut. That's what the statistics say at least.
Now for me the worst part in interviewing is the nervousness, in a 5 round interview I'll have to be in amazing shape to not blow any of them up. It has never happened to me before that I could stay focused and nerves free for 5+ hours straight during a series of interviews and I'm talking about much easier interviews than what Google/Meta throws at you. And I've gone through at least 50 interviews with all kinds of companies over the years.
It's just very difficult. I'm not saying people shouldn't try difficult things - I did, and I do and I will. But also being realistic about your abilities and chances is important.
Now not all FAANG is the same, for example Microsoft (who isn't part of FAANG apparently?) where I live isn't that hard to get into. Hard yes but is less notorious than the others. But I'm talking in general here.
At this point I wonder if I should tell you explaining your statistics are incorrect. It's actually worse than you point out.
Let's say you have a 1% of getting hired. And getting 2 offers is still getting hired, right? So the odds of getting hired after N interviews is:
1 - (1 - P)^N.
(because you have to be in the "not hired" 99% bucket every time)
For 5 interviews with P=1% => 4.9%
For 10 interviews with P=1% => 9.6%
For 20 interviews => 18.2%
50 interviews => 39.5%
It takes more than 68 interviews to get to a 50% chance of getting hired. And of course, the number of interviews can be infinite and you still won't have 100% odds.
Lol 4.9% I stand corrected then! My 1% chance figure is also pulled out of thin air, I have no idea how many candidates are being interviewed for a position. I'm sure there are thousands who are applying and much less than that get to the interview stage. Do Google/Meta/etc actually make the investment of interviewing hundreds of candidates for each SWE position? I have no idea.
Comments
To be fair the ones who do succeed in those FAANG interviews are probably pretty smart, good under pressure and know algorithms / data structures very well. I'd have a hard time passing these interviews even with a lot of preparation - I don't excel under pressure nor do I have the will to prepare for those interviews for months (which is what it would take for me to reach 'FAANG' level interview taking and I'm being generous here, it could take me more than months). The vast majority of candidates are like me - some combination of time constraints and lack of superior intelligence will prevent them for excelling in those interviews or even trying. I'm just not in the top 2% of devs in terms of intelligence and am not particularly great in charming my way into an offer, nor am I a member of a protected group / DEI. So knowing my chances are low to begin with I'm pretty much fine with deciding FAANG is not very realistic for me.
Surely that's an attitude thing more than a true limitation? Just because the hill is steeper for you doesn't mean you can't still get to the top.
Could be. Or it could be I'm just being realistic about my abilities - I mean statistically the vast majority of candidates don't make it to FAANG, you have less than a 1% chance of getting an offer. Even if you try all of them that's not great odds - 5%. Even doing this rotation twice, still not great - 10%. Now sure, you can make the odds work better for you by preparing more than the others, but there will be at least a few dozen other candidates that know this just as well as you do and will cram for these interviews just as hard. What are the chances you're smarter / better prepared / better interviewee than all of them? I'm sure there are many candidates who studies hard, are reasonably intelligent and just can't make the cut. That's what the statistics say at least. Now for me the worst part in interviewing is the nervousness, in a 5 round interview I'll have to be in amazing shape to not blow any of them up. It has never happened to me before that I could stay focused and nerves free for 5+ hours straight during a series of interviews and I'm talking about much easier interviews than what Google/Meta throws at you. And I've gone through at least 50 interviews with all kinds of companies over the years.
It's just very difficult. I'm not saying people shouldn't try difficult things - I did, and I do and I will. But also being realistic about your abilities and chances is important.
Now not all FAANG is the same, for example Microsoft (who isn't part of FAANG apparently?) where I live isn't that hard to get into. Hard yes but is less notorious than the others. But I'm talking in general here.
At this point I wonder if I should tell you explaining your statistics are incorrect. It's actually worse than you point out.
Let's say you have a 1% of getting hired. And getting 2 offers is still getting hired, right? So the odds of getting hired after N interviews is:
1 - (1 - P)^N.
(because you have to be in the "not hired" 99% bucket every time)
For 5 interviews with P=1% => 4.9%
For 10 interviews with P=1% => 9.6%
For 20 interviews => 18.2%
50 interviews => 39.5%
It takes more than 68 interviews to get to a 50% chance of getting hired. And of course, the number of interviews can be infinite and you still won't have 100% odds.
Lol 4.9% I stand corrected then! My 1% chance figure is also pulled out of thin air, I have no idea how many candidates are being interviewed for a position. I'm sure there are thousands who are applying and much less than that get to the interview stage. Do Google/Meta/etc actually make the investment of interviewing hundreds of candidates for each SWE position? I have no idea.