The recruiter initially presented a professional demeanor. I was first contacted by someone in Mountain View and then transferred to an individual in Santa Monica.

The phone interview was intense, but I did my best. I felt I answered most of the questions incorrectly. However, my interviewer walked me through any mistakes, and overall, it was a pleasant experience. The interviewer was very good. Most of my questions focused on searching and sorting; about half of them were standard questions from their database. He asked a good 10-15 questions during our call, most of which were brief. Unlike typical candidates, I was not asked any coding questions.

The on-site interview was a disaster.

1. It began with a discussion of my thesis topic, which was acceptable. Expect interviewers to understand your topic, no matter how obscure or specific it may be.
2. A second interviewer inquired about my thesis. He strongly disliked my topic, claiming it didn't scale well. It felt as though I was being penalized for not having access to Google's data! He then proceeded to ask some generic Java-specific questions from their database. Finally, I began coding on the whiteboard. When I made errors, his "hints" were very misleading; he could not clearly articulate the issues with my code.
3. I had lunch with my phone interviewer. It went fine, though Google's food is not as impressive as rumored. The other individuals I met during lunch seemed stressed but friendly.
4. I have no comments on the next interviewer, as he was quite good.
5. A HORRIBLE interviewer. He was arrogant, condescending, and intimidating. He posed a very esoteric question that was highly confusing and required me to consult a manual before attempting to answer. He was rude and unpleasant, making it clear he did not want to be there. I truly wanted to leave the room.
6. At this point, I was exhausted. This interviewer asked me a question, and while I was coding, I made a mistake. She stated the problem was giving her a "headache" and we would move on. The subsequent question was better and more pleasant.

My recruiter had advised me to use whichever language I was most comfortable with. I specifically asked if I could use Python, and she confirmed "yes." I am proficient in Java, C, and C++, but they are not my primary daily languages. To my dismay, most questions were phrased as "Use Java," "Use C, C++, or Java," or "Use C or C++." One interviewer did not even know Python. My initial recruiter explicitly knew Python was my preferred language and stated it was perfect for the interview. Apparently, I should not have been recruited if I don't program in Java/C/C++ daily. I was also informed that the interview assesses how you "think," which proved untrue. One needs to possess specific knowledge of algorithms, design patterns, and object-oriented programming; therefore, study relevant books before the interview.

I was told I would receive a response within a week. I never did. I had to contact the recruiter, and she acted as if she was going to inform me of my result that same day anyway.

The recruiting process is plagued with misinformation, and recruiters wield excessive power. Until this process is rectified, the company will continue to hire the mediocre candidates I have read so much about.

How would you sort 10 million phone numbers?

How would you implement a singleton in the language of your choice?