I recently applied for a programming position with some knowledge of maths.
The recruiter phoned me up and asked me if I was good at maths. I explained that it depended on the subject area because, although I have just finished a PhD involving mathematical modelling (as stated in my CV and cover letter), I wasn't a mathematician by training and it would depend on what methods the company were using.
I learnt an important lesson that honesty doesn't work with these people. He cut me off and said I wasn't suitable because this position required somebody that was good at maths. My CV wasn't put forward.
That doesn't sound like an issue of honesty. Context is important. Questions must always be answered from the questioner's point of view.
If you've finished a PhD involving mathematical modelling, from the recruiter's perspective you are definitely good at maths.
So the correct answer to "Are you good at maths?" from a recruiter is simply "Yes". If he wants more details then he'll ask for it. The correct answer is not a really long winded answer which the person who asked the question will not be able to understand because he doesn't know what mathematical modelling is.
Most people give long winded answers when they're trying to weasel out of giving the straight answer that they don't want to give because it'll make them look bad. Listen to any politician, for example. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the recruiter to come to the conclusion he did given that he didn't understand your answer.
Whether you think that recruiters should be able to understand your answer is another matter. We all know that most don't have sufficient domain knowledge, so the best thing to do is to answer appropriately.
"Most people give long winded answers when they're trying to weasel out of giving the straight answer that they don't want to give because it'll make them look bad."
It's well-known that "geeks" generally try to answer questions literally, and as accurately as possible. It's also pretty well known that the better at a field you are, the less highly you think of yourself (the Dunning–Kruger effect.)
Put those two together, and you'll see that geeks who are very good in a field will tend to give long-winded answers explaining exactly what they know and don't, instead of a simple answer. I do this myself all the time.
Your use of Dunning-Kruger isn't quite accurate. The better you are the less likely you are to overestimate yourself, unless you are in the very top, in which case you are likely to underestimate yourself in relation to others. Basically, because people have relatively little interaction with people that are very different from themselves, most people tend to rank themselves in the 3rd quartile, whether they are from the bottom two or from the top. That is very different from not knowing what you are capable of.
The grandparent made a very good point - many thanks for answering it better than I could.
The fact is, after spending years in the company of postdoc level applied mathematicians and theoretical physicists, I would feel massively dishonest to say that I was good at maths. However, I do see the point of trying to put myself in the shoes of the person asking the question.
It's actually a great indication that someone has had little experience with a true master in any field if they think hesitance to claim expertise is earmarking a cover up.
Reminds me of the concept of enlightenment. If you think you're enlightened, you are nigh assuredly not.
The recruiter phoned me up and asked me if I was good at maths. I explained that it depended on the subject area because, although I have just finished a PhD involving mathematical modelling (as stated in my CV and cover letter), I wasn't a mathematician by training and it would depend on what methods the company were using.
I learnt an important lesson that honesty doesn't work with these people. He cut me off and said I wasn't suitable because this position required somebody that was good at maths. My CV wasn't put forward.