This is probably less ageist than it is education-ist, which is not too far away from classist.
Personally, I do think it's worth testing candidates on these pure CS skills, even though I myself didn't have them and had to study before I interviewed at Google. What I've found since then is:
1. Surprise, surprise, I actually have used quite a few of these concepts in my work. My experience may not be typical, but my role really does benefit from my having a better grounding in algorithms than I did before.
2. When communicating with other people at the company, it is very helpful to be able to presume a baseline understanding of algorithms, data structures, and big-O. A lot of code reviews and design discussions are easier and faster when you can just say "yeah, but that's O(n^2)" or "BFS would let you early out more frequently here".
As an interview technique, I also think there is some value in testing an arbitrary skill a candidate might not have, because it's a good gauge of hustle and discipline. Yeah, learning algorithms is a chore and a hassle. But... a lot of shit you have to do at work is a chore and a hassle.
If the interviewer can see that you're able to make yourself do that for the interview, it's a good sign you'll have the discipline to do some of the grunge work that is inescapable in the software field.