Your comment is just ignorant.

The interviewer wasnt terrible. If the interview was being shown where the primary audience was geeks your argument makes sense. Given that the audience of that video could be a mix of geeks and non-geeks, I think it was just appropriate. After all, if he starts talking in terms of Markov chains, how many people in his audience are gonna understand that ?

I'm not asking the interviewer to talk about Markov chains, or even know much about them. I'm asking that he be able to form a coherent question on the subject. You would expect an interviewer asking about politics to at least be able to ask reasonable questions about politics and not say something like: "so how long have you been interested in politicizing, and voting, and things like that?". A good interviewer can tailor the interview to the audience, a bad one can hardly hold his own (this guy was an example of that).

I think he wasn't very good. He was obviously underprepared, or he would have had a couple of nicely phrased questions in his head. For a media professional, he was just too inarticulate.

Agree. However if I were to say anything bad about the interviewer I'd go with the line:

> "Good luck in the future and I have a feeling we're going to be seeing more of you in the (uhh..) future."

That's just bad interviewer.

Come on -- cut him a break. You cant literally analyze each and every word / sentence like that - unless its like a major goofup

Dude it's his job to form coherent and well structured sentences in ad hoc interviews, it's in the job description. My thoughts were this guy doesn't take his job seriously, doesn't know jack about the field, or isn't cut out for that line of work.

Your vitriolic remarks detract from your objection. The level of discourse around here is tanking faster than my Aunt Bethany at Thanksgiving dinner.

Vitriolic - really ? Sorry but I just cant think of what else i would call ignorance.

Why call it anything? Simply responding with a clearly articulated, contrary opinion is more than enough. I agree with your opinion on the matter, however.

probably you're right. I could have left out the ignorance part. But in the last couple of weeks, this is the 4th instance where I read someone just jumping to some conclusion and making a rash judgement about something that they have no experience about. I refrained from commenting the earlier 3 times, but this time, it just really irked me.

Agreed.

"So what's your next step?"

"Well, I might do this..."

15 seconds in,

"Okay sorry to cut you off short, I'm a terrible interviewer and my degree is in liberal arts, you're smart and stuff bye."

Ah, classic, another liberal arts degree bash!

Making your point without denigrating an entire educational system is usually feasible.

Thank you!

The kid blew it by saying "Markov chains"! I'm sure they hit the silent alarm pretty quickly after that.

Blew it? What's the point of interviewing a smart kid if you want him to be dumb during the interview?

Intended to be sarcasm...

I actually think the kid did a great job and the interviewer was pretty useless.

No, they want him to be smart enough to tailor his response to the audience.

Feynman was a smart guy, by all measures, but he knew how to speak at the appropriate level for his audience.

I quit watching after the first couple of questions. Anyone know where his research paper is?