There's a lot of talk about being willing to move and finding another job in the Bay Area - for those willing to look. But if you're a (still locally-employed in SD) senior engineer, how realistic is it? Seems like there is a certain amount of "luck" in terms of who you do tech interviews with at a prospective employer. If you don't enjoy doing random puzzles on demand and aren't great at being immediately comfortable with who is interviewing you, then what? Any experiences out there on the interviewing front to paint a realistic picture of what's currently happening?
12 replies (most recent on top)
OP here - really appreciate the perspective from these replies. Does that mean everyone up and moved to the Bay Area, then? Most q employees (and said engineer) have clearly seen the changes of the past four years, and know that moving on was always a serious consideration. You'd have to be naive to think otherwise. Family expenses in the Bay Area versus SD, however, are tough to swing.
Another long time ex-QC'er here, now a FANGer. Saw the writing on the wall way before things hit the fan back there. Was only surprised that QC hadn't fallen apart when I was there and knew it was just a matter of time. Had seen this kind of situation arise before and it was evident to me that the first major stressor to come along would bump QC off its perch. Glad I called that one and got on with my life as I saw fit. Things are much better on the other side.
My advice is just to keep on applying, interviewing, and prepping yourselves. If you aren't getting offers, there is something off. You just have to practice and get good feedback and try, try, try again. Use all prep resources available. I had the same issue, but finally got past whatever issues I had and started hitting about 50% success rate with interviews. There is a large component of luck to the whole process and the only antidote to that is just increase the number of interviews you go on so you get the numbers on your side.
OK - your question was a little easier then :-)
ex-QCOM, current FANG here.
So, there is definitely some luck involved in getting into a place which has a lot of candidates. Almost inevitably, the process is biased to reject candidates. ie: Do not allow people in unless you are sure of their value add. They try to keep the bar high. This is a huge relief once you are in and can count on everyone around you pulling their weight. It is refreshingly liberating.
Having said that mistakes do happen and sometimes non-deserving folks are indeed hired. That is a story for some other time.
That is what most likely happened to your friend. Also, your attitude in the interview does count. Believe it or not, I have had engineering candidates (for senior roles) tell me that they do not want to code any more. That is an instant red flag. You have to add value, and you do not start by dismissing the basic tools of the trade. Another red flag is how you deal with disagreement in an interview. Do you dig in your heels, or do you listen to corrective feedback.
Otherwise there are really no games. For software engineering interviews at least, practice coding and system design. Practice your leetcode. You will be fine. The process can totally be hacked - and we are well aware of that. You would be surprised to see how few actually make that effort.
Good luck!
FANG is not the only way to get out of the q. There are many places to work in bay area that dont give bs interviews and pay well, maybe not as much as FANG but i think you will be surprised at how the avg engineer in a FANG place doesnt make that much more
OP again - thanks to the two ex-employees that responded. It's difficult for me to fully understand the topic because I am not the engineer in question. My question really boils down to how to successfully get past the interview process when parts of it are hard for a somewhat reserved type to thrive.
I am asking because recently, said engineer was contacted by one of the FANGs - had been interviewed several years ago, seems to be working on something they needed, they reached out to said engineer. Went through the phone interviews, had a day of on-site interviews - the upper level ones went well. Then there were two that weren't so great - different content than what was told to be prepared for, seemed really random - in fact, one interviewer was a last-minute change. The games stuff that said engineer doesn't work well with.
This engineer has had their name included on patents for past work projects (sounds impressive to me, may be standard operating procedure for you types on here), is nimble in terms of learning technical solutions for what needs to happen in order to get projects done and running well, can both create from whole and fix broken things. But when you are an engineer that is more comfortable working on building a great project than selling yourself to find the next opportunity, that's when switching gears to job-hunting is a challenge. The "selling of one's self" isn't easy when your nature is one of show, don't tell at work. So networking can be a challenge because it doesn't feel "authentic."
It's difficult for me to understand how to help said engineer when their current work environment at q is two mass layoffs in three years (hard conditions to work in), and job interviews for senior tech aren't easy to clear due to a personality that skews modest, private, slightly introverted when meeting new people (working on a team is not a problem). I suppose this is their issue, not mine. Just hard for me to stand by and watch as I observe from the outside how q has changed over the past few years.
I cannot afford the Bay Area.
I am an ex QCOM engineer and am at one of the FANGs just like another poster here. Here is what I have seen between a few of my friends and myself.
Qualcomm values execution. A lot of the work that senior ICs (or managers) do is keeping track of a huge number of variables and minimizing the probability of product failure. On average, the engineer at a FANG is more capable than the average engineer at Qualcomm. Just think, how many people you know that joined Qualcomm when they had an offer from one of the FANGs.
The top talent at Qualcomm is comparable to - say the top quartile at these companies. They can thrive anywhere.
Now, given that the average engineer is more motivated/willing/capable at the FANGs, the need for pure supervision and task tracking is lower. This reflects in the the following ways for senior people.
a) You cannot add value simply by tracking/delegating/managing. These are not valued.
b) You can add value by superior technical contributions. The bar for these is much much higher than at Qualcomm. Note that at Qualcomm, a lot of technical work, even along the senior IC track is to redo what was done for the last chip. There are new challenges sure, but the blueprint is well established. If you disagree, just think of all the Principal Engineers you know that are doing the same thing that they did last year/two years ago.
c) The need to manage groups/people does not go away completely. You will, however, manage a much larger team. Directors will easily have 50+ people as an example. VPs will have 150-200+ in their organization. You will also have set the vision and direction for the team. Note that at Qualcomm, this is rarely done below the VP level. And often not even at the VP level.
Folks from Qualcomm are good. They will thrive. They will simply not be able to hide behind busywork which a career at Q often ingrains in us. It will always come back to the simple question of - how you are adding value ! And the answer cannot be found in tracking an excel sheet !
Ex-QCOM a few years ago.
Now employed in one of the GAF companies. (Sorry cannot get more specific than that)
From my interview and numerous interviews I have conducted with current employer.
No puzzles really.
But interviews tend to be very subject matter comprehensive and several rounds. 2-3 rounds of phone screen plus at least 1 on-sites are the norm. (Can be 2 or even 3 on-sites for very senior IC's or EM's with more than 50 roll-ups). Coding methodology and range of coding is critical in all SW roles.
Your ability to be hired is also influenced by inputs outside the group. Hiring manager by himself cannot move things alone. This is especially true of senior IC roles.
There are boot camps specifically designed to make you pass the BS puzzles. You can also do this yourself with online resources.
You put in the work and you’ll get hired.
It’s not rocket science.
How bad do you want it?
Just jump through the hoops. It may be BS, but you need to be practical about it.
OP here - I am not an engineer, but close to someone who is. Doesn't talk sports or schmooze well, is constantly fixing messes well below their level (seems common at q), would be better elsewhere as the architect they are. Has interviewed in the Bay Area a few times, can't get past the "BS interview puzzle questions," as someone else aptly put it. Great engineer constantly learning what needs to be learned to solve the task at hand in a clear manner. Connects on those interviews that are about greater construction questions, can't crack the puzzle questions that are "game playing" and not about building a solid product. Can get the job done well once in the door, doesn't seem to be clearing the doorway, however.
It all come down to whether they like you or not, and lets face it, you know whether you like a person or not quickly after meeting them. The rest of the interview process is BS and paperwork justification for whatever choice has been made.
A resume may get you into the door, but after that it is all about personality.
If you consider yourself one of the most valuable 173 workers at Qualcomm (Lewis’ Law) then you can probably blow off the BS interview puzzle questions, which by the way QC used to impose. Cutting edge companies want contributors, not game players.