[jonnathanson]

You make some decent points, but your "Data Analytics" questions are pretty basic. Stats 101 level stuff. I mean, sure, you might want to open with one or two of these questions, just to test someone for bullshit. But if someone's applying to be a data scientist and can't tell you what a 95% CI means, or what Type 1 and Type 2 errors are, or describe the concept of expected value, their resumes probably shouldn't have passed your filter in the first place.

Second, I take issue with the "marketers are mathematical Neanderthals" line. This is a broad stereotype that does nobody any favors. As much as everyone likes to take swings at MBA types every so often, graduate-level marketers need to be highly proficient in statistics to be competent at their work. Few of them can code, I'm sure, so in as much as that's the case, they're probably not of tremendous value to an early-stage growth team. But a classical marketing training most certainly includes strategy, stats, data analytics, etc. It's not just advertising.

Now, if you're talking about "marketers" in the sense of Communications majors who've never so much as passed Calc B, I'd see your point. But those sorts of people fall into an entirely different category.