It is interviewers job to get rid of illogical assumptions like this. This particular assumption is odd, experienced people often moves to talk about theory - sometime literally because they expect interviewers to be interested in that.
I don't think it's odd. The article says that 15% of Triplebyte's clients dislike it when things get too theoretical. Absent other signals, veering deep into theory on the assumption that interviewers generally like that is clearly the wrong idea.
My experience is that most people are happy to leave school behind, and they invoke theoretical concerns only when they are applicable and relevant. People want to hear about you've built and what you've done, they don't want their compsci textbook recited back to them.
If a candidate only has heavily academic projects, or can only discuss projects in heavily academic terms, interviewers may assume that the candidate is either a student or a researcher, and in either case, that person is probably not a fit for a conventional programming job (but they may be a great fit for a much cooler job in R&D somewhere).
Some companies really value an intensive academic background, but not all or even most of them (the article says that only 40% "need to see" academic CS skills, 15% actively dislike overt CS discussion, and that leaves 45% that didn't respond or don't care or whatever -- 60/40 split that talking less CS is at least harmless if not beneficial).
The takeaway, IMO, is to keep things at the high level, and stay focused on real, practical experience until prompted otherwise.
Guess I Am lucky that I meet good programmers who were not above theory and continually keep themselves informed. Contrary to what you write, there is no dichotomy between the two and your coding skills are not harmed by learning theory or keeping interest in it.
I also think that if knowing something harms me in the eyes of the company, then I do not want to work there. Such environment must be demotivating for learning. And i need to continuously learn. It is ok if they don't care and it is awesome if they are interested in different things that me (I can learn from them). Especially if we are talking about small companies where people who interview you reflect wider culture. Working in environment where people sort of punish you for knowing things they don't know is road to mediocrity. I want to work with collegues that will motivate me to learn - that is super important in length term.
So that leaves 85% of companies where I can talk about theory and not be harmed at all.
You're continuing to conflate knowing theory with focusing too much on theory in the interview process. I don't think anyone begrudges candidates for knowing theory. It's when their answers are primarily theoretical instead of primarily practical that the issue comes into play.
> You're continuing to conflate knowing theory with focusing too much on theory in the interview process.
That sounds like the social skills issue. If the interviewer signals change of topic is needed and interviewee does not follow, you definitely know the person has limitation in the social skills area. Also, if the person can not talk about practical aspect, they can't.
However, "15% actively dislike overt CS discussion" does not suggest companies that merely wanted to talk about practical aspect and could not. It suggest companies that are hostile towards people who attempt to talk about theory - talk about it too much and you are primary theoretical despite being also capable practicaly.
In any case, I do not want to work somewhere where I am expected not to talk about what I know (beyond the normal "don't have long monologues they areally not interested in"). I want my collegues to talk about what they know too.
