I was contacted by Google without them knowing I had a degree, although they knew by the time I was scheduled for an interview. Apparently washing out in round one of Google Code Jame 2012 was enough for them to seek me out. I performed to expectation by similarly washing out of the interview.

Steve Yegge wrote that you should apply to Google, no matter whether you think they'll take you or not, because it's a desirable position and the cost of failing is low. I spent $200 on a hotel room (not reimbursable), $150 on transportation from and to the airport (not reimbursable), $50 on baggage fees (reimbursable), and two days of my salary (since I wasn't at work when interviewing) (not reimbursable) in order to apply. This could be described as "significant".

They don't reimburse travel expenses for interviewing? That's surprising, and a shame if its true.

They reimburse airplane tickets (well, actually they pay for the tickets directly), but they don't reimburse "private transportation", e.g. getting from the airport to the hotel.

I feel compelled to add to this: degrees are used as a filter for graduate level jobs. I do have a degree, but it's a studio art degree (i.e, painting, drawing, etc). I've had interviews with Google in the past, and like the parent it was just through recruiters getting in touch. At a certain point, your experience matters significantly more than the degree.

I also washed out, but it was pretty enjoyable. I certainly wouldn't describe it as a hazing.

This presumes that a) You want to work at Google and b) You consider Google to be doing interesting stuff that it would be worth applying. I don't. They aren't.

What was your excuse for that two missed days in your then current job?

I had six years of experience in video games and was a hardcore C++ programmer. To be honest, I was surprised they called me.

Nowadays, showing a body of work speaks volumes. Show, don't tell!

Couple of points for your article:

Regarding the C++ self-assessment, it depends to whom your talking to. If it is a 10+ years of exp. hard core C++ programmer, then your point is right. But if it is some recruiter clerk - who just writes down your answers to compare with other candidates' answers later, then it is 10/10 :)

Another answer could be: "for your company, it is 10/10" depends on the company, of course.

But all in all, I find this score based questions quite stupid. Instead, you should ask for past projects using that particular language.

*

Now regarding your algorithmic part. Tell you honestly, the fact that the candidate implements the Dijkstra's algorithm quickly, because she implemented it twice, 2 weeks before the interview tells me just that - that she implemented it 2 weeks ago, twice....

I'd more value a candidate who have never implemented it, or implemented it 10+ years ago but doesn't remember details - when given the details/specs and a sufficient amount of time, and can implement it.

Overall, I prefer when the candidate can come up with the higher level solutions - knowing when to use e.g. Red-black (or any other balanced) tree, shortest path algorithms, suitable containers - data structures, etc... for some particular problems. The actual (hence 2 weeks ago) knowledge of every specific details of how to implement these is not that important.

Have you written a blog post about leaving and your time since then? I'd love to read.

In my case, being recommended by a Googler was enough to get the interview.

They don't require a degree if you have significant experience, and a referral from a Googler helps.

(Source: don't have a degree, interviewed at Google)