This doesn't make sense to me, the way you've worded this. A person needn't have ever been exposed to linked lists to understand "what's going on under the hood" - which is a far bigger picture than you're trying to get something as confined as linked lists to fill.
You're seemingly saying, "You don't know fruit because you know fuck-all about dragonfruit," and that - to me - is a pretty myopic take on things; especially, in a growing cloud-centric world.
For example, I would expect that someone who could tell me how the debugger knows where their exception handler is (to be able to handle their exception) would be a better caliber for determining whether they've "thought much about what is going on under the hood" than someone who could just tell me how performant a linked list is, yeah? In the former, it's actually having had to understand what it's doing. In the latter, it's just 'x' type that - maybe - you get exposure to because of uni settings.
...but, to give credit, maybe I'm misunderstanding your intentions, as you've worded them?