So I was recently asked (and gave a very bad answer to) a question that has been haunting me ever since. What is the subfield of computer science where I am the strongest? First of all, in my undergraduate training, I was never really introduced to these ideas of subfields of CS explicitly. I knew intuitively there was a difference between people working on databases or on operating systems, programming languages or algorithms, but it wasn’t emphasized as a choice I would ever need to make. This is perhaps because I went to a relatively weak school in CS for my undergrad. But now that I’m in a rather strong CS school and pursuing a CS-related masters, the question should probably have entered my mind before now.
So when asked, I floundered about for an idea and spluttered out “algorithms” just because it seemed like it was hard to go wrong there. Well, I’ll leave the details out of this little memoire, but suffice it to say, I was wrong. A better answer would have been “none.” Where does natural language processing / computational linguistics fall in the list of subfields? Is it its own? Or is it part artificial intelligence, part algorithms, part whatever? I’ve seen it lumped with AI more closely in the past, but unfortunately AI escaped me as a possible choice when called upon in this high-stress scenario. Moreover, I haven’t really compartmentalized techniques as belonging to “AI” or “databases.” Is it useful to do that? I guess I do sometimes, but when people ask me to make big picture assessments of things I haven’t thought about much, it takes me a while to process it.
I hate interviews.
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
12 March 2008 at 19:50:24
Josh
In future interviews, just try to relax. If asked a question for which you haven’t prepared, talk it through. You could have told the interviewer exactly what you posted - about what your current interests are and what spheres it may touch and why you haven’t really considered that particular question before and thus have no canned response. That kind of elaborative answer can help. Often, the more you talk (as long as it isn’t BS) the better you’ll do. Of course, my side is just one side - I’m pretty certain my environment and field is different than that for which you interviewed, but I think the above advice is pretty universal for all sorts of interviews. I definitely understand that it can be hard to relax and be yourself during an interview, but if you can it will almost certainly help.
12 March 2008 at 21:14:07
Jason Adams
Yeah that’s good advice. One thing I need to remember is to prepare mentally for these things. Instead I psyched myself out and got too nervous.
15 March 2008 at 09:38:23
Chris
Are these job interviews or interviews for PhD programs? To me, there’s a big difference. Job interviewers are just trying to get a sense of whether or not you really have the background your resume claims you have (i.e., can you perform the tasks they need you to perform) and they’re trying to see if they like you personally (can they work with you day in day out).
Interviews for a PhD program can be something entirely different. I remember being asked what other programs I had applied to. I thought it was an odd question, but it turns out they had a ulterior motive. Since linguistics is just a divided field theoretically, they wanted to know if I understood that Arizona’s linguistics department was world away from Santa Barbara’s. If I had applied to both, they would have thought I didn’t really understand the field. A PhD interviewer may also be judging whether you really have the right motivations for academic work. Are you going for a PhD to get a better job in industry, or are you interested in contributing to the history of ideas? Perhaps this is less of an issue in CS where industry career tracks are common.
In any case, a PhD interviewer may want to see that you have a big picture plan for your role in academics, whereas a job interviewer may not.