I work in the enterprise where for the most part people I interview can't explain things like polymorphism, which is sad. I once interviewed a fellow with his P

I work in the enterprise where for the most part people I interview can't explain things like polymorphism, which is sad. I once interviewed a fellow with his PhD in Comp Sci who couldn't explain simple theory based things such as graphs or know when to apply graphs. I agree that these kind of questions are important on phone interviews people it weeds out the people who aren't very good without having to waste my time to ask these kinds of questions. When I interview people, I want to be more concerned with the persons problem solving skills than their ability to trivially memorize words and definitions. I must state though that these concepts are important to solving the problem correctly. If I give you a problem to solve, its important to solve it, but it is important to solve it elegantly (I know that sometimes this is not possible). If I have refactor your code every time you check it in, not only are you wasting your time, you are wasting my time which means things aren't getting done. To their point, these concepts are very important, however hey aren't the most important thing to look for in people. I'd rather have someone that could solve problems kinda well, who was friendly than someone who can't solve problems but has a large computer science vocabulary.