[sheepmullet]

"The bottom line is that unless they mention X as some major skill area, you pretty much have to assume that it was just another random thing they were forced to learn that day"

If you call yourself a data scientist but don't know a lick of statistics then you are the one being misleading. You can't just pick this stuff up overnight. It is a bit like claiming you are a systems developer but then in the interview you don't know a thing about pointers or what the heap is. If your actual knowledge of systems development is "I wrote a python wrapper around a c library once" then representing yourself as a systems dev is intentionally misleading your interviewer.

[dreamweapon]

If you want to find out if a candidate knows "a lick of" statistics, try asking about something generic, like confidence intervals. But he didn't do that; instead he grilled them on the default partition scheme for algorithm X.

Which (unless the candidate advertises themselves as having significant experience in algorithm X) is about as useful as asking them if they know the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow.

[grayclhn]

You are seriously underestimating the importance of deep statistical knowledge in some of these jobs.

In the example, the candidate wasn't grilled on the default partition scheme; he or she was grilled on the partition scheme that was used. If someone thinks that's an unimportant implementation detail, why would you ever want to hire them?

[dreamweapon]

You are seriously underestimating the importance of deep statistical knowledge in some of these jobs.

In some of these jobs, maybe. But the person I was initially responding to wasn't looking for someone with "deep statistical knowledge"; rather, he was looking for that species which goes by the trendy, loosey-goosey catch-all moniker, "data scientist".

And if you're going to put "data scientist" in a job title -- with no further qualifications -- then you had better understand that it's nearly useless as a description of anything (beyond a few colloquial definitions floating about, which there's still no real consensus on).

If on the other hand, you want an "MS/PhD background in Machine Learning and/or Statistics, or equivalent work experience" then that's fine too, of course -- just put it in the job description. It's really quite easy to do, and it will save everyone tons and tons of time (and grief).

In the example, the candidate wasn't grilled on the default partition scheme; he or she was grilled on the partition scheme that was used. If someone thinks that's an unimportant implementation detail, why would you ever want to hire them?

Again, it matters to the extent that they, themselves, emphasize it as a core skill area. When someone simply says "did $foo using X" in some project description, I personally don't read anything more into it than that.

[grayclhn]

I can see why you read it that way, but that's not how I read the initial comment and it's at odds with the top-level post. I might be out of date, but I don't think quant jobs are listed as informal "data scientists;" those postings are more for what were characterized as "mundane back office jobs." (Again, I could be wrong.)

But the question's not as esoteric or impossible as you're making it out to be. "What's a confidence interval" is something any good undergraduate applying for finance jobs should be able to answer, regardless of major. I'd expect an enthusiastic undergrad stats or compsci major to care about the implementation details of an estimator they'd used for something nontrivial. (Which seemed to be the case in the original comment.)

[dreamweapon]

Fair enough, and points taken. Thanks.

[fat0wl]

No regrets.... if you are going to suck up to traders to get in on their pile of gold, either commit to it or don't. I used to complain about code exams until i realized "this is how you prove you want/deserve the job.... if someone else can pass where i fail, that is not necessarily the hiring managers fault". if you cant answer their questions dont expect the job.... you either want it enough to fortify your defenses or you dont. Even if they are going to ask a bunch of redundant, irrelevant, easily Google-able crap -- not having an answer is going to beg the question "how come they never, out of curiosity or to impress people in my position, Googled this easily Google-able crap?"

i just dont think these environments r made for you or me...... i used to win many math comps and was at the top of my class for years & years. in college i went into media programming & psychology because i didnt really want to study stuff i thought was boring all day just to be a market kiss-ass

as a result, i have a pretty boring job but i let my mind wander creatively & still work on a ton of music & creative projects. I've designed some pretty sophisticated machine learning algorighms/research in audio signal processing but i don't get to study it all day because there is not much market demand.

i know i have more raw talent than most people i interact with (in fact im confident i can self-teach myself various technical disciplines to near-expertise) but i've also come to understand that employers don't care. beyond entry level, they are just looking for someone who says the right things and has already done work that resembles the job they are hiring for.

sometimes i consider self-teaching toward a goal like being a quant, but then i remember that that world is not for me. im not insanely greedy so its not a big deal. and though my enterprise work now is boring, there are several things on the horizon that seem much more promising & appealing than finance. i am accumulating skills & enjoying having room in my head for other thoughts. i don't work in the startup world because i haven't encountered anyone with compelling ideas but i suppose thats where people like me are destined to end up.... i stay sharp & am confident that i could code a mini-enterprise in a year, once i find the right idea.