think that's true. For example, while I was still working at AV, I
had a phone interview with someone at Y! who was looking for someone
with experience in algorithms, C++, and multicast. He asked me to
rate myself in algorithms on a scale of 1 to 10. I gave myself an 8.
He seemed to be displeased with that response, and asked me what I had
been doing for AV. When I explained that I was processing the web
server logs for the business operations group, he said that I would
probably be better off looking for a position in the media services
group. (FWIW, I had several extensive conversations with them, but
they didn't hire me either.)
I don't think it was wrong to rate myself as an 8 in algorithms. In
fact, I think I was being somewhat generous, particularly since I
haven't done anything really algorithm-heavy in about nine years.
This is (part of) how I generally rate people in algorithms:
10 - someone who has written an authoritative text on the subject or
has done seminal work in the field. People such as Knuth and
Thomas Cormen are good examples. For those who were in AV, I
would give a 10 to Andrei Broder and David Cossock.
9 - someone who either has a PhD in the subject or has many many
years of experience, and has done recognized (published) work in
8 - someone who's completed some graduate work in the field or has
many many years of experience, and can answer most of the
questions in a textbook (including some of the starred exercises)
written by someone who ranks as a 10.
On a related note, at a friend's bbq on Sunday, I was discussing my
unemployment situation with a friend. She asked me if I had applied
to any of the open positions at Cisco. I told her that I don't
currently qualify for most, if not all of those positions, because
they assume a background in things like VoIP that I have either never
done, or haven't done in a long time (and the technology was
different, e.g. there was no such thing as gigabit Ethernet). I
actually checked back and applied for one position that I think I am
marginally qualified for (but only because the req states "knowledge
or ability to learn").
I don't think there is anything wrong with being honest about one's
qualifications. I don't want to get in a situation where there's an
expectation that I'll be able to do something fairly quickly, but I'm
not able to do it because I either don't remember how or can't learn
it quickly. I would rather do something where I feel fairly
comfortable that I can come up to speed quickly and be an asset and
resource to the company overall.