So I wanted to ask the opinions of hiring managers or anyone who had to hire someone for a technical role.
Could you possibly talk about some of the characteristics of candidates that made not want to move forward with interviewing/hiring them? And if possible, could you also talk about if you'd hire Junior Engineers and if not, why not?
As the 1st Android engineer and lead at Course Hero (now rebranded to Learneo and valued at $3.6 billion), I owned the entire Android engineer hiring pipeline. I went through resumes, edited the job postings after the recruiters wrote the initial ones, and built the entire interview process (and gave the interviews of course).
So from this perspective, I'll chime in:
You can follow the advice here to build better side projects: [Taro Top 10] Building Impressive Side Projects
Here's another great discussion about this: "What technologies or stacks should I create a project to add in my resume for entry level software jobs?"
Let me answer the inverse question: what made me really want to interview a candidate?
The strongest signal is if this candidate has already done the exact job at another company and succeeded, e.g. I'm hiring a growth engineer for my B2C startup, and ypi were a growth engineer at a company like Pinterest or Airbnb. Even if you were a junior engineer, I'd almost certainly want to interview since I'd feel like you could bring a lot of the insights of those successful companies into my team.
So your goal as a candidate is to show that you have extremely relevant experience for the company. It could be through a past company you worked at, a side project, or even a talk you gave.
If you don't have any of that, then I'd focus on a narrative that shows how much you're willing to learn, and your track record of learning quickly. e.g. show various projects you've built, and show how you went deep into some domain. This is what separates the best Junior Engineers -- do I feel like they went beyond their schoolwork or past work assignments to truly understand their technology choices and the problems they were solving?
Especially at Senior levels people are really good at talking. So the most important thing is to gauge if they were standing around watching this thing get built or did they really have huge personal impact on its design, build, and iteration. This is where asking them to solve a real problem vs tell you about something they solved can help. (I was just reading about this on Taro or LinkedIn) Option 2 is really focus on follow up questions to get more details off the “happy-path” of the story to see how much they thought about their project from different angles.
Re: junior engineers the same thing applies. I love that you say you’re good at learning, now I’m going to explain a new programming language/concept to you in one minute with an example and then ask you to debug a real code snippet.
Unfortunately, the process is much less open-ended when it comes to Big Tech. For junior engineers, here's the signal they use (most important -> least important):
Remember: This is not a checklist. A lot of people get into Big Tech without prior internships or a fancy degree. And just because you have a fancy degree doesn't mean you're smart. But these quirkier cases of non-traditional candidates breaking into Big Tech are the exception, not the norm, especially in this market.
On top of the prior signals, there are the table stakes:
If you don't have these, it will be near impossible to even get an interview.
Again, there are exceptions, but they're extremely rare. Supporting an engineer's visa situation takes a lot of company resources on top of the very competitive compensation package they're giving. Big Tech will only do this for legitimately super star candidates.
You might be looking at this and thinking "Wow, Big Tech hiring is extremely elitist", and you would be completely right. When you're a slammed FAANG recruiter with literally 1,000+ resumes to go through, you need to do quick pattern matching against things like university caliber and prior internships in order to filter out candidates efficiently enough. That's just how it is.
If you want to avoid all this BS, apply to startups, grow like crazy there, and you can come back to the Big Tech hiring world later on if you want as a mid-level or senior engineer. At that point, credentials like college diploma are almost meaningless. Check these out:
Small follow up question though @Alex - what if I’m a new grad and I’ve already landed the interview with whatever resume I had. (Re-reading the question I realize it is more about what you were mentioning but it think this is also interesting and related).
What are you looking for in our 1 hour conversation that would make you want to give a thumbs up or down vs the next new grad you speak with? Is it still just my internships and GPA or something you can discern by talking with me?
What are you looking for in our 1 hour conversation that would make you want to give a thumbs up or down vs the next new grad you speak with? Is it still just my internships and GPA or something you can discern by talking with me?
Once you're in the interview, the playing field is equal and I would judge you similar to everyone else who's made it before me. It doesn't matter if you have an Ivy League degree or 5 prior FAANG internships - Everyone's the same.
For junior engineers, I am mostly looking for raw coding ability. In other words: Can you write high-quality code quickly?
However, this looked different across Meta and Course Hero as I gave 2 very different interviews with these companies: