> The problem is that you can't just solve the hard problems Which is why I said I don't expect them to solve the problem, I'm interested to see: - the genera

> The problem is that you can't just solve the hard problems Which is why I said I don't expect them to solve the problem, I'm interested to see: - the general thought process - whether the candidate is inclined to jump at the solution or clarify the problem (neither approach is "disqualifying", btw! but for a senior position I do kinda' expect the candidate to recognize when a specification is incomplete, and I will provide increasingly ambiguous problems/questions to see when he stops making assumptions) - that the candidate is capable to identify some "leads"/ subproblems that need to be solved first/ to reduce the problem to a different one/ etc. > But then you could just look at their uni grades, if you want people who are good at learning. If only it was so simple... some people are good at learning, they just don't have good grades (e.g. they have to work to support themselves and don't care much about some grades); while others are good at getting generally good grades without actually being good learners (extreme example: cheaters).