Or how about, you know, stop pretending we can evaluate someone's "intelligence" or "skill level" as if it's a one-dimensional factor that you have superhuman insight into measuring.
I'm satisfied, in an interview, if I feel the person is interested in the topic, is able to admit that they don't know something, and seems like they'd be pleasant (although i'd settle for "not difficult") to work with.
The breadth and depth of their knowledge is secondary and it's always a gamble because people excel at putting up very convincing façades of whatever it is that they think they're being evaluated for.
People have different things to offer, and you really don't find out until at least 6-12 months into their employment what they really excel at, you have no chance in 30-60 minute (or whatever) interview.
The best you can hope for is to rule out the obvious sociopaths.
>The breadth and depth of their knowledge is secondary
That's what the parent comment is saying. Open-book instead of closed-book, just have the candidate walk you through figuring out what they don't know, listen to them think aloud, and evaluate that.
I'm satisfied, in an interview, if I feel the person is interested in the topic, is able to admit that they don't know something, and seems like they'd be pleasant (although i'd settle for "not difficult") to work with.
The breadth and depth of their knowledge is secondary and it's always a gamble because people excel at putting up very convincing façades of whatever it is that they think they're being evaluated for.
People have different things to offer, and you really don't find out until at least 6-12 months into their employment what they really excel at, you have no chance in 30-60 minute (or whatever) interview.
The best you can hope for is to rule out the obvious sociopaths.