> I've recently had multiple candidates recently with inflated resumes. Not mere embellishments, but claiming advanced degrees in computer science when they can't solve a simple algorithmic problem (something that can be coded in <10 mins).

I've a BSc in one of the better universities for CS in the UK. I can barely implement any algorithm that I learned during my university years. The amount of times I've been told implement algorithm x, y, and z in the past ~10 odd years in my professional career has been zero. Conversely, the amount of times I've been asked to implement them during interviews has been way higher.

Unless you're hiring someone to implement such an algorithm, you shouldn't be using them as a test, because most, if not all, the algorithms we got taught during my CS degree, have one or more implementations to the point where I can just use those implementations. Heck, I wouldn't even want to waste time re-implementing it, and probably doing a bad job of it, when I can just use someone else implementation, who most likely will do it better than anything most people can.

No OP, but when I ask people to solve an algorithmic problem, I don’t mean “regurgitate this algorithm from memory”, I mean “I give the candidate a plain english description of an algorithm and ask them to turn it into code” (eg “read this .txt file, for each word in the file, reverse the word, and print it to stdout”). This does a pretty good job of filtering out people who can’t write a `for` loop, which is a lot of people, even those with “senior” in their past job titles...

This is exactly what I'm referring to. I'm not testing for rote learning. I'm testing problem solving ability.

The vast majority of places are asking algorithmic questions not for you to reimplement known algorithms, asking candidates to regurgitate existing algorithms is widely known as bad practice.

> The vast majority of places are asking algorithmic questions not for you to reimplement known algorithms

So your claim is every company is coming up with new algorithms that they use for their tests??

An algorithmic question is a coding problem that focuses on problem solving, and may include questions/constraints related to time & space optimization.

The test should never rely on rote learning (e.g. implement Dijkstra's algorithm from memory) or require a "magic" solution (e.g. Project Euler)

> Not mere embellishments, but claiming advanced degrees in computer science when they can't solve a simple algorithmic problem (something that can be coded in <10 mins).

I thought the second part of the sentence would be about how they don't actually have those degrees. If you say that you have the degree you have, that's not embellishing at all, and it doesn't mean that you'll be able to solve a coding problem. They're two separate things and you've kind of mixed them up.

There's two questions

- is the candidate outright providing false information (where they've worked or studied, how much experience they have and with what tools etc)

- does the true information give you the wrong impression about the candidate i.e. you think someone with this degree or with that many years of experience should be capable of more than they are

Ok I agree with your point that "embellishment" may not be the correct term and I really meant the latter.

I 100% expect that someone with an advanced computer science degree can demonstrate they have problem solving ability. I don't really think that is an unreasonable assumption. I mean we're talking undergraduate level skills that are the bare minimum for an entry level position at my org.

If it really is the case that an advanced computer science degree does not convey computer science knowledge then it reinforces the need for screening questions.

> Ok I agree with your point that "embellishment" may not be the correct term and I really meant the latter.

There's no 'may' involved. It is not the correct term.

Here in the UK, embellishing your CV can be classed as 'fraud by false representation', which carries a maximum 10-year jail sentence.

The accusation of being “egotistical” is total projection. If you want people to do monkey tricks for, the least you could do is allow a bit of dignity by letting them speak for themselves.

If someone chooses to refuse a technical interview they did speak for themselves. Even more so if they, as OP did, explicitly said that it is "insulting" or otherwise beneath them.