They almost always mean “talented/experienced” people are in demand. Not some random who did a bootcamp and watched a few YT videos and can barely copy and paste from stack overflow.
I think he meant technology knowledge rather than skill. For example rejecting a candidate with 10 years of java experience because they need a programmer who needs 10 years of python experience.
> “I know I am a creative person who can do many of these jobs, but I think employers have these expectations that an applicant must bring a mid-level professional’s work experience and technical skills — even though it’s only an entry-level job,”
Well if they can find people who do have that experience and skill level, why would they hire you instead? It's simply a matter of supply and demand.
Some people think you need to have experience in that exact language or framework to be hireable. I would not expect that especially among fresh graduates, but that is me.
I read the parent as talking about narrow skill sets that a smart and motivated individual can pick up pretty quickly. If you're looking for a senior developer you probably don't want to hire someone who has never programmed even if they're widely acknowledged as really smart and an expert in ball bearing design.
And obviously applies in lots of areas. If I'm looking for someone to head up a digital marketing or marketing research initiative, someone whose only work experience is software development is probably not the best choice no matter how smart and motivated they are.
OTOH, as you get to the level where people are more managers than practitioners, their specific skill sets presumably start to make less of a difference.
Added: And, as peer noted, people do shift careers significantly all the time. I never really directly used my undergrad (or grad) engineering degrees all that much.
Recruiters who simply buzzword match resumes to requirements written by managers who are following the latest consulting firm's recommendations.
You can have 20 years experience with every major programming language and operating environment, but if you don't have the in-vogue framework and most hyped language using the FAANG only container technology then you don't even get a phone screen. Of course YMMV and you could land a job based on your domain experience.
The context for the joke is that some job listings have inflated requirements, like N years of experience from framework/language X that realistically nobody has (or in this case, can have)
I think that's pretty dismissive of people with experience. Learning the latest stacks isn't particularly hard, and it's really not that valuable (especially if it's in webdev)
It depends on what you are doing, tech is hard to learn when its in a difficult discipline that takes time to do well. It also depends if you need a lead, or not. If you need someone to sling javascript, maybe you get away with someone younger.
If you need a lead to help you build a database kernel, or build a globally distributed system that needs strict SLAs and extreme performance, you are probably going to need someone with experience. Putting someone with 2 years of experience into that role is asking for a disaster.
Most startups aren't doing anything super difficult from a technical point of view, and don't necessarily need their systems to last, so hiring younger people, paying them less, giving them equity that isn't worth anything and burning them out is a winning strategy.
> A candidate should have the experience to do the job well.
I feel like this is the least true statement in the article. A candidate should have the willingness and ability to learn the skills required to perform the job duties, and improve those skills over time. They should have some basic building block skills required in advance, like understanding how code languages work, and how to learn them, or how to communicate with teammates and get difficult questions answered. But experience is probably not what they need, unless only experience can build a specific skill (i.e. product/market vision based on intimate domain knowledge.)
Let's also clarify why experience is misleading in general. The candidate might have no experience but could have been an early programming enthusiast with tons of projects under his belt. Current recruiting systems reject such talent or offer them very poor packages.
In the uk I often see posts for graduate programmer positions with essentially this arrangement: words to the effect of “candidates need not have experience coding but should show a willingness to learn and deep interest in tech” etc.
> "Experienced software architect with a proven track record of delivering high quality and performant blah blah blah"
What's wrong with that? Each part of the phrase sounds like something an experienced developer should strive for, and is objectively testable (e.g. delivered projects in a work setting or not, well-written code or not, the software runs quickly or not, etc.).
Junior developers in particular may lack the track record part when starting out, so it's a good indicator that a person is applying for more senior positions.
"Qualified applicants" takes on a different meaning if you're looking for someone to crank out a CRUD app or write operating system kernels.
For example, we've been looking for an entry-level web developer for almost a year. They actually put "computer science degree" and "2 years experience" on the job ad. We found a pretty smart kid with an associates that blew the interview by mentioning he kept up with industry trends on Reddit - so our boss is afraid he's going to screw around online all day.
The sad part is, 3 of the other 4 developers in the department came from other areas in the same company, one in shipping and one in billing, and have almost no formal computer training and don't even know how to upgrade Firefox.
When companies list many seemingly silly requirements (example, why do I need experience with database x, when I can pick it up in less than a week?), at least two types of candidates will be likely to apply: those that know all of it and possibly more, and those that don't check off all boxes but had the guts to attempt to convince them to pick them anyway.
The one type is going to fit right in and be ready to contribute quickly. The other has the drive to get up to speed and further.
Both are much desired people.
> But how often in web engineering do you see postings for junior employees? Everyone wants someone who already has experience, the more senior the better. How do we get more people of any diversity to work at our companies if there are no entry-level positions in the field?
Unfortunately, it's true in most field, it's extremely rare to find an ads that doesn't ask for a diploma and job experience (it didn't ask for experience, but I saw an ads where they asked for a diploma in a call center position...)
In some industries it means, "You've got a ton of experience, and know this stuff inside and out. But we don't want to pay for someone who knows what they're doing."
As you stated, they're looking for inexperienced drones.
reply