I think its obvious someone fresh out of college will have "excellent algorithmic thinking" since that's how they spent the last 3/4 years. So in that case you

I think its obvious someone fresh out of college will have "excellent algorithmic thinking" since that's how they spent the last 3/4 years. So in that case you should be spending more time during interviews looking at the more likely areas of weakness, which I'd sum up as "real-world experience." If you're interviewing experienced candidates, then you can generally hazard a guess that their areas of weakness are elsewhere (lack of passion, knowledge and experience that hasn't kept up with the state of the art, etc). Interviews are all about probing. They shouldn't be a set of rote questions that you apply to every candidate regardless of background. You should make a guess at what the candidate's weaknesses are, and then push on them, push on them some more. This will also help you learn how well they deal with adversity. Of course, before this, testing is a good way to determine what a candidate's strengths and weaknesses are. As a total aside, I've found that US Customs and Border Patrol (the ones who do "secondary inspections") are about the best interviewers out there. They probe so much you end up feeling a little violated.