So far, I've been enjoying reading these questions. However, I think that the format prevents using them to answer what might be a more interesting question - how long would it take someone with a different (non-CS) academic background to answer the question (with understanding, obviously, not through cut and paste). In other words, rather than asking whether someone knows the answer, ask how well prepared they are to research and understand the question.
You're misunderstanding the purpose of these questions. It isn't to determine whether you are able to figure out the answers to these questions -- as many people have pointed out, some of these are simple "type into google" questions.
The point is that knowing the answers or being able to figure them out on your own is, I believe, strongly correlated with having a good understanding of the entire area the question is drawn from.
I didn't write the questions, so the purpose of them really isn't up to me. However, I don't really agree that they are simple "type into google" questions.
For example, suppose you let someone google around for a half hour to try to answer the question about how to determine if a graph is bipartite. Now, you spend about a half an hour doing an oral exam to see how well they understand what they just regurgitated.
I suspect that you would see a wide range of performance, but that people with certain academic backgrounds might do much better than others. That's the "more interesting question" that I had in mind.
Actually, suppose someone had never take graph theory came up with a novel but ultimately flawed attempt at an algorithm. That might be a stronger sign of talent in this area than someone who had taken the class and was able to reproduce an algorithm (even if that student showed a genuine understanding of it).
I did say that some of the questions are "type into google" questions. The bipartite-graph question isn't -- but most people will have never seen that particular question in class, either. That one is a "can you take material you should know and come up with something new" question... just like the TLB question in part 2 and another question in part 3.
I really don't think any of the questions are "type into google". For instance, take the question of the run time of quicksort. Someone could google this, but how well would their answer stand up to the slightest bit of probing if they didn't understand it?
For instance, suppose someone doesn't really remember the quicksort algorithm, but looks it up and is quickly able to determine the run time by analyzing the algorithm. To me, that's pretty much as good as knowing the algorithm's run time off hand. Maybe even better. For all I know, if you changed the question just slightly and ask if the run time has changed, the first student has shown the ability to analyze the run time of an algorithm - the second student's ability to do this is still unproven.
