* The word say "Google, not surprisingly, hires mainly people who attended the country's top engineering universities, like Stanford and MIT" but the bar graph says 3% from Stanford and 1% from MIT. Yet, the Apple hiring graph shows Apple hired 2% from Stanford.
There is no statistical information given with the graphs, but I strongly suspect that the difference between 3% and 2% is statistically insignificant in the studies. Kind of undermines the premise of the article.
* The characterisation "mainly" seems like a big stretch for 3% (Stanford) + 1% (MIT). It is even a stretch for the total of all the schools listed, 9%.
I have said for quite a while, that engineering dominated interviewing processes favor INTP and filter out the INTJ type, when you loose INTJ's you loose the very people that can bring creativity to projects. Sometimes they are not the top of the top when it comes to pure CS or Math, but their ability to view things from a different perspective make them invaluable to development teams. From what I have read, I believe that Google's hiring processes is the antithesis to the INTJ profile.
I see many interview questions (and discuss interview techniques with peers) and more often than not I wouldn't even know where to start - but I have managed to fairly consistently design/deliver large projects - and take a startup through to IPO (I'm an INTJ).
Yep same here, I have been through 2 fairly sizable exits, in which I build the tech from the ground up and have done some pretty complex development in my career. That being said I have difficulty with any interview where trivia type questions are asked, let alone the whiteboard as it puts me totally out of my element, I create on computers, as such it is where I do my work, the whiteboard in front of people that I do not know, is not a place to draw out creativity on demand, it is the opposite of the environment needed for an INTJ.
Google's email system, Gmail, for years forced consumers to use a "conversations" format that geeks raved about but that confused normal people who liked good old email.
Is this really a common complaint? Everybody I've talked to loves it, and Apple added it in Lion.
* Correlation does not imply causation. http://xkcd.com/552/
* The word say "Google, not surprisingly, hires mainly people who attended the country's top engineering universities, like Stanford and MIT" but the bar graph says 3% from Stanford and 1% from MIT. Yet, the Apple hiring graph shows Apple hired 2% from Stanford.
There is no statistical information given with the graphs, but I strongly suspect that the difference between 3% and 2% is statistically insignificant in the studies. Kind of undermines the premise of the article.
* The characterisation "mainly" seems like a big stretch for 3% (Stanford) + 1% (MIT). It is even a stretch for the total of all the schools listed, 9%.