> Rather it is being able to build up experience and carrying knowledge forward to new areas. Then I'd expect the candidate could articulate her experience and

> Rather it is being able to build up experience and carrying knowledge forward to new areas. Then I'd expect the candidate could articulate her experience and knowledge in some way, no? Otherwise, how would I know the candidate has the built-up expertise? Of course, I assume we can only have interviews. Otherwise, we can have other means, like mini-project, onsite project, or a writeup. Some candidates do like the alternatives more, and some not. > where the goal is to memorize pieces of information I disagree. The goal is to see if a candidate does have what the candidate herself claims to know. I find it hard to imagine that a candidate claims to be an expert in a field yet couldn't articulate even one thing in depth for hours if not days, let alone 30 minutes of interview time. Note this is not about any specific details, but the general picture and insights that an expert can convey. This is like a PhD oral defense. The candidate talks about the topic that the candidate is familiar with, and the professors dive in on such topics. I don't see what's wrong with that.