So, it seems like I am constantly writing about new hires or summer interns.  To be honest, I am hoping that it interesting to hear how someone goes from college student to designing golf clubs.  For the next few weeks, I am going to let one of the guys from my team take over the blog.  He is going to mentor our new hire. For those of you who read Alex’s posts last year, these might be similar except that they are coming from a seasoned veteran rather than the new kid on the block.


My name is Brian and I’m a Research Engineer on John’s team.  We’re hiring a new Research Engineer and I’ll be training and mentoring him, then blogging about the process.  He’ll also pipe in from time to time to give you his perspective.  I’ll be teaching the new hire how clubs work, and then how we measure, analyze, and improve them.  I’ll try to briefly explain these to you during this blog series, but feel free to ask any additional questions along the way.

The first step in the process was finding the right person for the job.  As I’m sure most of you know, it’s a lot more enjoyable (and humorous) conducting the interview than being interviewed.  Plus, our interview process is more intensive and technical than most others, leaving some candidates wanting a refund on their college education when they’re through (and by some… I mean me).  Here are Tom’s (the new guy) comments on each step of the way.

As Brian mentioned, I will attempt to relive this period for all of your enjoyment (it had much more anxiety for me).  The first step involved a simple phone interview where John and Brian asked for clarification about information that was presented in my resume.  At this point, I was told that I would be required to complete a technical interview.


This is where all the fun begins.  The technical interview is both enjoyable and nerve-racking at the same time.  Learning the required information is enjoyable because you get to learn much of the engineering that is involved in designing golf equipment; however, this process is also difficult because you are expected to learn enough to appear as knowledgeable as John (who has many years of experience) in 4 days.  At this point, I would like to provide you all with a sample idea of what I went through during the interview.


John: Look at the following few pictures, which do you think corresponds to each golf shot?

Tom: Answer

John: Why?

Tom: Follow up answer.

John: Why?

Tom: Second follow up answer.

John: Why?

Tom: Final answer.

John: Ok, next question.


This went on for about an hour. I didn’t get a moment to relax. They kept me on the hot seat the whole time.


After the technical interview, I did not hear from Cleveland for about 4 or 5 weeks.  I was starting to believe that I was not going to be moving on with this job and preparing to be unemployed as my graduation started to loom.  Out of nowhere, I received an email from John asking if I was still interested and would I like to come out for an interview.  Would I? … YEAH!


The final step for me was to fly to HB and meet with a few of the people involved with the R&D department here.  I think I met 9 or 10 people.  Everyone was extremely nice and I knew that if I got this position I would get along well with everyone and truly enjoy the job.  I ended up hearing back from John the next week, and he offered me the job.  I had the weekend to think over the offer, but only needed about 5 seconds.


When I arrived, I got off the plane with a single thought in my mind, “Now What?” … I’m still working on that.

Tom stood out in all aspects of the interviews making it an easy decision for us (and brining high expectations with him).

As part of on-site interview, I like to give brain teasers or logic problems to the candidates and see how they react (even if they don’t get them right, do they put in effort, give creative answers, or just give up?).  To keep this blog interactive I’ll leave you with one of the logic problems I asked Tom at the end of each blog.  Feel free to just think about it to yourself, or respond in the comments if you think you have a good answer.

The Pond:  You’re in a boat in a small pond.  You drop the anchor from inside the boat to the bottom of the pond.  Does the water level in the pond rise, lower, or stay the same?


(This is Tom:  I don’t remember the answer to that riddle, but I remember that I got it wrong.)

Categories: R&D, THE LATEST

5 Responses so far.

  1. kenny says:

    stays the same ,you still have the same displacement !!!

    Report this comment

  2. MJ Martin says:

    Not being an engineer nor a college grad, the practical answer to me is, stay the same

    Report this comment

  3. Brian says:

    I agree with both of you that the water level staying the same seems like the answer at first, but here’s a clue: think about how the water is displaced.

    Report this comment

  4. Cory says:

    The water level in the pond should fall… I think.

    The anchor has a larger density, or more mass per volume than water, so outside of the lake the weight force from the anchor displaces much more water than it would in the lake.

    Think of an ice cube in a glass of water. After it melts the water level is lower than when it was floating ice.

    Also, very jealous of the hire, I play D-II golf at the Colorado School of Mines and am pursuing a degree in Mechanical Engineering. I would love to be in your situation in a years time, working for some golf company.

    Report this comment

  5. sballs says:

    Water level falls.

    A floating object displaces a volume of the liquid such that the mass of the liquid displaced equals the mass of the floating object:

    Vol liquid displaced = density liquid * mass floating object

    Initially this volume is

    = density water * (mass boat + mass anchor)

    After the anchor is dropped

    = density water * (mass boat – mass anchor) + volume anchor

    Since the anchor sank after the anchor is dropped, less water displaces

    HOWEVER, as worded, the pond could also rise in level. If the boat was floating purely due to surface tension and thus on top of the pond (highly unlikely but not necessarily impossible) and the anchor broke that same surface tension somehow, Archimedes principle would then kick and the water level would rise.

    **yes I am bored at work

    Report this comment

Leave a Reply