http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/03/technology/03google.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I found this article a little disturbing about Google's shift in culture, but in some ways it makes complete sense. The company that has managed to tame the Internet with some amazing algorithms is trying to beat the hiring game with a few algorithms as well. Currently, they value academic achievement and the ability to complete a few puzzles and mind games/tricks -- but it seems they are maturing a bit in how they select bright people.
Unfortunately, bright, talented people do not always test well and don't work well with numbers. Many of the elite of the business world didn't finish college or went to average schools and got average grades. Google is valuing personality, a good thing, but in it's analytical fashion is putting a number and a value to what makes one personality better suited to work there than another.
The sad thing is they have made hiring and personhood into a game. Already when someone goes to interview for a job he or she isn't who he/she is. People lie and don't say what they really like or why they really want a job. Now someone can lie on a test and give a "better" response rather than a real response.
But honestly, for a company that has managed to define what makes a page more suitable for your needs or your search based on mathematics and the occurence of certain words, it is culturally consistent to do that with it's hiring practices. Do I personally agree with it? No, but then again, Gearmark is based on something completely different than Google.
Comments