it is given that minimum you should be able to do is to code but that doesn't say at all can you actually develop something (think about that for moment)
Low level stuff is generally easier to master (hence low part in name) than high level abstract thinking and concepts.
Most people can learn low level stuff but most people doesn't grok high level stuff and implications of decisions they make.
Yeah but I would think that evaluating whether a person can code or not is hard. (From both personal experiences as an interviewee/interviewer and the large number of posts regarding interviews that we see on HN every day). During my limited "oldster" interviewing experience as part of my startup job, I have found that people who have spent a long time out of academia find it (slightly) harder to solve questions on trees, graphs etc. On the other hand, they do cream the shit out of problems that you face in your day to day job in industry. On the other hand, people who are fresh out of school typically have the situation in reverse. I myself again feel the best way to evaluate a person's coding ability is to ask them to work on a tiny project. However, it doesn't seem reasonable to ask a person coming in for a senior position to work on a silly coding challenge.
