A Google engineer's advice to computer science students: Go where the hiring bar is lower and get your foot in the door
Don't underestimate the potential advantage of a first or second-year program at a Big Tech giant. It could be your foot in the door to a full-time offer. A referral can also help, too.
Google software engineer Tawfiq Mohammad interned at the company for two summers before receiving a full-time offer — and he suggests current computer science students try to do the same.
"I think one of the most important things I've done in my career, to date, is applying for these first and second year programs," he said in an interview with YouTuber Sajjaad Khader. "Like I said, it's a first and second-year program for computer science students, and the hiring bar is much, much lower. For example, they'll ask like a Leetcode easy instead of a Leetcode medium," he added, referencing the technical interviews.
It's no secret that entry-level coders have it rough right now compared to the hiring boom of the pandemic. The tech industry is still feeling the effects of the last few years' waves of layoffs, and the stress of shrinking opportunities is compounded by companies increasingly turning to AI to accomplish tasks human coders once did.
To better your chances of clinching an internship, Mohammad said, tailor your résumé and track your applications.
"I started tracking my applications for these internships as opposed to just mass applying and just like waiting for whatever comes into my inbox," he said. "So, it was very organized. I would update the status of each application and it would help me a lot to prepare for each interview and for which stage I was at in each interview."
To get his internship at Google, Mohammad said he cleared one behavioral interview, followed by two technical screenings. To prepare for the latter, he advises students to learn the pattern of Leetcode questions, rather than focusing on memorizing individual problems.
"If you try to memorize it problem by problem, you'll eventually be given a problem that you don't know," he said. "So you just want to master the overarching principles."
Mohammad acknowledged that getting a referral from his father's friend, who was already employed at Google, likely helped his chances. If getting a recommendation is within reach, he suggests applicants do what they can to secure one.
"I think that really helped me get my foot in the door in the application process," he said. "I got an interview really soon after she submitted the referral. You want to try to separate yourself from everyone as much as you can when you're applying for these internships."
And if you just can't seem to get an internship in this brutal job market, try to start learning critical skills on your own time by taking on projects, he added. Then, you'll have more to list on your résumé that could make you a more attractive applicant.
"I think the best way to learn these basic computer science fundamentals is really just like doing things on your own," he said.
If and when things eventually do work out, Mohammad suggests being as independent as possible. Ask for help when you need it, but the more problems you solve on your own, the more you're likely to learn.
"You're smart enough to evaluate whether you're blocked," he said. "And if you're really, really blocked, at a certain point, obviously, then you should ask for help. But try to solve your problems on your own. Just by solving the problems on your own, you'll understand how all the systems fit together, how things run, and eventually you'll start helping people with your expertise."
In an earlier interview with BI, Mohammad said interns should try to "learn as much as possible" from their more experienced colleagues.
After all, they were likely once in a similar place.
" They're really smart, so you want to absorb as much information as you can from them," Mohammad told BI.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Verge
an hour ago
- The Verge
Inside the courthouse reshaping the future of the internet
The future of the internet will be determined in one building in Washington, DC — and for six weeks, I watched it unfold. For much of this spring, the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse in downtown Washington, DC, was buzzing with lawyers, reporters, and interested onlookers jostling between dimly lit courtrooms that hosted everyone from the richest men in Silicon Valley to fired federal workers and the DOGE-aligned officials who terminated them. The sprawling courthouse, with an airy atrium in the middle and long, dark halls that spring from it, is where cases involving government agencies often land, and that meant it was hosting two of the most consequential tech cases in the country, all while fielding a flurry of unprecedented lawsuits against President Donald Trump's administration. Between mid-April and late May, Judges James Boasberg and Amit Mehta respectively oversaw FTC v. Meta and US v. Google, a pair of long-running antitrust lawsuits that seek to split up two titans of Silicon Valley. Over the same period, several DC judges — including Boasberg — had a full docket of cases related to Trump's first 100 days in office, covering the administration's attempt to mass-deport immigrants, strip security clearance from law firms, and fire thousands of federal workers. On the first day of the Google trial, a sign with a comically contorted arrow directed visitors toward their chosen antitrust case. It was soon joined by directions to the high-profile hearing over Trump's order against law firm Jenner & Block. While the FTC's lawyers were calling witnesses against Meta in one courtroom, a nearby room was hosting arguments about whether Trump could fire two of the agency's own commissioners. My colleagues gathered around the feed waiting for a Google witness, only to see a prison-jumpsuited defendant step into the box For reporters, the weeks were an exercise in constant case-juggling. During the overlap of Google and Meta, I'd arrive to long security lines that would sometimes jut into the small park that adjoins the courthouse, waiting to hunt down a media room that streamed video for reporters and avoid the electronics-free courtrooms. I'd occasionally show up to find out no such room existed, and in a small stampede of reporters, I'd rush up a few flights of spiral stairs to the courtroom, scribbling handwritten notes from the back rows. One day, my colleagues gathered around the feed waiting for a Google witness, only to see a prison-jumpsuited defendant step into the box — in the brief moment before reporters realized Mehta was taking a quick break for a criminal hearing, they wondered which high-profile tech executive it was. The executives, for their part, were plentiful. On one day a witness box saw Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg praising Instagram's success; a week later, former colleague and Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom sat there describing him as a jealous boss. Google CEO Sundar Pichai would soon testify a couple floors up, followed by executives at some of Google's biggest rivals, including Microsoft and OpenAI. For all of them, the stakes were high. Judge Boasberg is tasked with determining whether Meta built an illegal monopoly by gobbling up Instagram and WhatsApp, while Judge Mehta will decide whether Google must spin off its Chrome browser or syndicate its search data. For the judges, the gauntlet seemed nothing short of exhausting. Boasberg, chief judge of the US District Court in DC, had been assigned to the Meta case long before Trump took office, but after the inauguration, he became one of the busiest judges in America — overseeing a challenge of the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants, and a lawsuit over Trump's cabinet's use of encrypted messaging app Signal to communicate about attack plans. As I concluded a day of the Meta trial at 5PM, a fresh crop of reporters arrived to cover Boasberg's consideration of the Alien Enemies Act, which Trump was using to deport Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador. Outside the courtroom, Boasberg fielded attacks from Trump — who labeled him a 'Radical Left Lunatic' and a 'troublemaker and agitator' and called for his impeachment. At the Meta trial, Boasberg appeared even-keeled — sometimes to the point of boredom. He rarely mentioned the rest of his docket beyond subtle references to his overflowing schedule; his interventions were astute, signaling a deep understanding of the case. But he'd often sit with his head in his hand, only occasionally gently encouraging attorneys to move on from a particularly tedious line of questioning. He used a lunch break in the Meta trial to file one of the most scathing legal rulings of the early Trump administration, accusing the administration of 'willful disregard' for his temporary restraining order on deportation flights to El Salvador, with 'probable cause' to find it in criminal contempt. By the Meta trial's end in late May, Boasberg sounded relieved as the final day wrapped. 'I will take a welcome respite from thinking about this between now and when the first brief is due,' he told the attorneys. In 1998, the E. Barrett Prettyman courthouse played host to another tech giant fighting for its life: Microsoft. US v. Microsoft was a landmark monopoly case that determined the company had illegally wielded its dominance over Intel-compatible PC operating systems to tamp down threats to its monopoly, including up-and-coming web browsers like Netscape. But in the wake of that case and subsequent settlement, regulators took a hands-off approach to the next generation of tech companies. It would take two decades for the government to return to the battleground — until 2020, when the cases against Meta and Google were filed. The search and social networking landscape has changed dramatically in the last five years, with the rise of TikTok and generative AI. But so too has the zeitgeist around tech. As Silicon Valley remains politically embattled, the goal of more aggressive antitrust enforcement has won bipartisan support. At the same time, there's a growing fear of foreign competition, particularly from TikTok, which appeared in the very same courthouse last year to argue against a (since-delayed) nationwide ban. The company found itself back there as a witness during Meta's trial, where lawyers confronted a TikTok executive with statements made during its failed 2024 fight. Those weeks of courthouse testimony helped illuminate countless decisions that made the tech world as we know it Inside the courthouse, it was easy to forget about everything else going on in Washington — until it wasn't. I was removed from the day-to-day antics of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) hacking away at the federal workforce, but the cases about its handiwork — including gutting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) — kept winding through court. During a break on the fourth day of Meta's trial and days before the start of Google's, I got a New York Times push notification walking back from the bathroom, telling me Virginia Judge Leonie Brinkema had ruled against Google in the DOJ's separate ad-tech antitrust case. I hustled back to the media room and found several of my colleagues from other outlets already in the hallway writing up their stories. Of course, we commiserated, a decision we expected months ago would drop right now. Rulings in this spring's Google and Meta trials will likely take months to arrive, and their fallout probably won't be seen for years. But those weeks of courthouse testimony helped illuminate countless decisions that made the tech world as we know it. During the early 2010s, Facebook executives expressed fears that Google might buy WhatsApp and bundle it with Android, giving itself a stranglehold over mobile messaging. With the context of the Google trial, that fear looks prescient — the company cemented its search dominance by making Android phone makers preinstall its search engine in the same way. It's also possible to see the shape of giants yet to rise. Should Judge Mehta order Google to sell Chrome, several witnesses said they'd be more than happy to buy it, including Yahoo, Perplexity, and OpenAI. The Justice Department's landmark antitrust trial against Microsoft is widely credited with opening up the tech industry for innovative players like Google, and a quarter-century later, there's hope something similar could happen for new companies today. Yet it seems equally possible that in another decade or two, we'll be back in this same courthouse, hearing the government argue they've nailed the doors shut once again.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Hurricanes and sandstorms can be forecast 5,000 times faster thanks to new Microsoft AI model
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. A new artificial intelligence (AI) model can predict major weather events faster and more accurately than some of the world's most widely used forecasting systems. The model, called Aurora, is trained on more than 1 million hours of global atmospheric data, including weather station readings, satellite images and radar measurements. Scientists at Microsoft say it's likely the largest dataset ever used to train a weather AI model. Aurora correctly forecast that Typhoon Doksuri would strike the northern Philippines four days before the storm made landfall in July 2023. At the time, official forecasts placed the storm's landfall over Taiwan — several hundred miles away. It also outperformed standard forecasting tools used by agencies, including the U.S. National Hurricane Center and the Joint Typhoon Warning Center. It delivered more accurate five-day storm tracks and produced high-resolution forecasts up to 5,000 times faster than conventional weather models powered by supercomputers. More broadly, Aurora beat existing systems in predicting weather conditions over a 14-day period in 91% of cases, the scientists said. They published their findings May 21 in the journal Nature. Researchers hope Aurora and models like it could support a new approach to predicting environmental conditions called Earth system forecasting, where a single AI model simulates weather, air quality and ocean conditions together. This could help produce faster and more consistent forecasts, especially in places that lack access to high-end computing or comprehensive monitoring infrastructure. Related: Google builds an AI model that can predict future weather catastrophes Aurora belongs to a class of large-scale AI systems known as foundation models — the same category of AI models that power tools like ChatGPT. Foundation models can be adapted to different tasks because they're designed to learn general patterns and relationships from large volumes of training data, rather than being built for a single, fixed task. In Aurora's case, the model learns to generate forecasts in a matter of seconds by analyzing weather patterns from sources like satellites, radar and weather stations, as well as simulated forecasts, the researchers said. The model can then be fine-tuned for a wide range of scenarios with relatively little extra data — unlike traditional forecasting models, which are typically built for narrow, task-specific purposes and often need retraining to adapt. The diverse dataset Aurora is trained on not only results in greater accuracy in general versus conventional methods, but also means the model is better at forecasting extreme events, researchers said. Related stories —Google's DeepMind AI can make better weather forecasts than supercomputers —Is climate change making the weather worse? —What is the Turing test? How the rise of generative AI may have broken the famous imitation game In one example, Aurora successfully predicted a major sandstorm in Iraq in 2022, despite having limited air quality data. It also outperformed wave simulation models at forecasting ocean swell height and direction in 86% of tests, showing it could extract useful patterns from complex data even when specific inputs were missing or incomplete. "It's got the potential to have [a] huge impact because people can really fine tune it to whatever task is relevant to them … particularly in countries which are underserved by other weather forecasting capabilities," study co-author Megan Stanley, a senior researcher at Microsoft, said in a statement. Microsoft has made Aurora's code and training data publicly available for research and experimentation. The model has been integrated into services like MSN Weather, which itself is integrated into tools like the Windows Weather app and Microsoft's Bing search results.
Gizmodo
an hour ago
- Gizmodo
YouTube Will Add an AI Slop Button Thanks to Google's Veo 3
I told you that AI slop was coming for your YouTube content, and did you believe me? I don't know, maybe you did, but if you didn't believe before, you certainly will now. According to YouTube CEO Neal Mohan, who gave a keynote at the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity on Wednesday, YouTube is getting a new tool that generates Shorts from 'scratch.' By scratch, I mean with the help of Google's recently unveiled Veo 3 AI generator. That's right, a one-stop shop for AI slop is incoming, which should be great if you like not ever knowing what's real or fake. Mohan, like many executives in tech and otherwise, is decidedly very excited about the potential for AI to shake up the game. Here's what he said during his keynote, per the Hollywood Reporter. 'Communities will continue to surprise us with the power of their collective fandom. And cutting-edge AI technology will push the limits of human creativity. My biggest bet is that YouTube will continue to be the stage where it all happens. Where anyone with a story to share can turn their dream into a career… and anyone with a voice can bring people together and change the world.' Sure, that's one possibility, I guess. The other possibility? A new and heaping mountain of junk content that neither enriches your general selection of YouTube fodder nor protects the already embattled line between reality and fiction. I hate to be the resident slippery slope guy, but how far are we really going to take this? According to Mohan, pretty freakin' far. 'The possibilities with AI are limitless,' Mohan said during the keynote. 'A lot can change in a generation. Entertainment itself has changed more in the last two decades than any other time in history. Creators led this revolution.' people are using veo3 to bring history to life in the form of vlogs 🤣 via HistoryVisualizedbyAI on YouTube — Tanay Jaipuria (@tanayj) June 15, 2025 It's a little ironic to extol the creator-led content revolution on one hand and introduce a watershed tool that helps vacuum up all of their content and regurgitate it into AI slop on the other, but hey, who's counting? Oh, that's right, Hollywood is. As noted by the Hollywood Reporter, YouTube has already struck a deal with the Creative Artists Agency (CAA) that gives artists and athletes control over their likeness. But that's just some artists who are okay with capitulating to the apparent tsunami of video generation. Hundreds of other actors have already voiced their concerns over the potential for AI to ruin their careers and plunder their intellectual property. As a result, they've called for regulation on generative AI and its implementation. You may have gathered from the simple fact of my writing these words right now that those cries for a legal framework haven't really gone anywhere. They may never, to be honest, which brings me back to YouTube's plans for a future AI slop faucet. Here we are, on the precipice of real and fake, looking out at the horizon of God knows what, waiting for the deluge of AI slop to send us kicking and screaming into the ravine of existential AI pain. I'm not saying YouTube's generative shorts are going to be the lynchpin in that frankly depressing, slop-filled future, but there's no denying it's a nod in a sloppy direction. I guess we may as well get used to it. I mean, it can't get any worse than MrBeast, right? Right?
