I don't know. I just ask questions. I don't have any good answers.
I've tried to figure it out every time I've had to hire someone. The best luck I've had is with prior knowledge of the person (worked with them in the past, knew them from an Open Source project, etc.). I'm suspicious of the network hiring process, though, as it seems to narrow the pool too much, and certainly doesn't scale. I think it can also bring about quality degradation over time as people bring in people they like rather than people that are the best.
I just have a sneaking suspicion that some of the things that Google does wrong could possibly be attributed to hiring predominantly from the "teacher's pet" archetype.
I think you are confusing different parts of Google's hiring process.
Keep in mind this guy started in tech support. When you describe Google as requiring a "top-tier degree" you are thinking of software engineer positions. If you want to get a job at Google doing tech support, or working in a datacenter, the hiring bar is lower.
That's true. And, contractor positions are also easier to get hired for than full-time positions. It's a very common "back door" for folks who don't meet all the requirements into a job at Google to start as a contractor...I know several people who got their Google job that way. I question how readily one can move between those positions at Google, and the more rarefied positions, though.
So, maybe Zeke is an exception at Microsoft, too, and this really is just some straight up astroturfing. I'm sure one could easily find a few dozen team leads at Google that don't sport a fancy degree. But, if Microsoft doesn't actually want to hire more people like Zeke, it seems like a poor choice of story to tell.
Anecdote time: I have a friend at Google who started there as basically a glorified tech while he was attending a community college (so, no degree at all). Google has been paying for large chunks of his tuition, enabling him to scrape together enough money to go to UC Berkeley. He recently graduated, and simultaneously shifted from his technician position into engineering based on feedback from the engineers he worked with.
Mind you, it took him a pretty long time to do so, and lots of things could have gone wrong on the way, but its definitely possible.
I've tried to figure it out every time I've had to hire someone. The best luck I've had is with prior knowledge of the person (worked with them in the past, knew them from an Open Source project, etc.). I'm suspicious of the network hiring process, though, as it seems to narrow the pool too much, and certainly doesn't scale. I think it can also bring about quality degradation over time as people bring in people they like rather than people that are the best.
I just have a sneaking suspicion that some of the things that Google does wrong could possibly be attributed to hiring predominantly from the "teacher's pet" archetype.