Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

61% of “Entry-Level” Jobs Require 3+ Years of Experience

talent.works

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 364 posts

Re: 61% of “Entry-Level” Jobs Require 3+ Years of Experience

#161

Post by cannonedhamster »

kahnjw wrote: post #149
michaelt wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Passion is a relative term. Nobody goes to work at Facebook or Google thinking "wow, I'm so passionate about adverts and tracking, I want to build a world with more ads and tracking in more places". It's normal not to be passionate about your work in that sense. However, some people find computers frustrating, stupid or boring. Such a person probably wouldn't enjoy a job working with them all the time - and it's diff…

Passion: strong and barely controllable emotion. "sufficiently non-loathsome...motivate yourself to do it" is a far cry from passionate. Tangentially related @sarahmei on twitter wrote a thread about passion in tech. IMO she nails it: https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/921366047122268165

This woman completely catches what my college experiences were for me. Great read. From all the data I've seen poverty level is the biggest factor that determines your future potential with race right behind, one would think that we would try to make opportunity the main goal in an advanced society. Not everyone will or wants to be financially successful but when the two things that weigh heaviest on where you end up are where you start financially and what color/gender you are that's not a sustainable or fair system.

Re: 61% of “Entry-Level” Jobs Require 3+ Years of Experience

#162

Post by jlelonm »

kushalc wrote: post #122
stinkytaco wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmmm... what have you got for someone with no experience? j/k, but I am curious how much time you think is average for a job search in terms of both hours spent and days/weeks before finding something. You talk about "time and stubbornness" but I'm interested just how much time and how much stubbornness. I realize this varies widely by industry, but I would expect there's some sort of white collar average.

We're actually hiring for no-experience positions too! (TBH, some of my best hires were no-experience, high-potential fresh grads who've turned into powerhouses.) I don't suppose you want to be a Marketing Assistant? ;) To your specific Q, yes, it does vary dramatically by location and specialty. In fact, we did an analysis about exactly that a few months ago! Even for white-collar positions, it ranges from ~14 weeks…

Oooh, what might those positions be? Also, is there a list of jobs available on your website somewhere? I couldn't find one.

Re: 61% of “Entry-Level” Jobs Require 3+ Years of Experience

#163

Post by paulddraper »

chroem- wrote: post #9
Waterluvian wrote: post #5

Won't the market sort out whatever this is? Is there a specific unfair mechanism at play that would prevent supply and demand from finding its balance?

The fact that people need a source of income to live, and that they have very little influence on the price of their labor without collective bargaining.

Don't forget the fact that companies need employees to survive and they have very little influence on the price of the labor without (illegal) collusion.

Re: 61% of “Entry-Level” Jobs Require 3+ Years of Experience

#164

Post by paulie_a »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #157
paulie_a wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is amazingly short sighted by an employer. They don't deserve to have an employee they can train. A company is losing the opportunity to train employees. And if they don't put the effort in early.. They are probably losing their top talent and don't even realize it.

Right, it's a thinking ahead investment scenario with risk. But if you look at it from a transactional point of view it makes no sense: I pay you to educate you while you provide me with nothing.

If an employer is thinking with that mentality, why would I ever want to work for them?

Re: 61% of “Entry-Level” Jobs Require 3+ Years of Experience

#165

Post by IncRnd »

whorleater wrote: post #56
hayksaakian wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Yes. Any job with entry level requirements will get 20-100 applications on craigslist in seattle (my experience). More or less applications on more or less popular platforms 2) Yes. Half or more of the applications I've reviewed are totally unqualified. Either they ignored the requirements or fudge it and flop on the interview. 3) Tech has even more noise than my personal experience due to higher pay scales and in…

>without any personal interest / passion in technology Can I not work in tech without being passionate?

> Can I not work in tech without being passionate?

You can, but from the employer's perspective many markets have more applicants than positions. The employer can choose those who are closer to the ideal employee. One of the qualities of such an employee is often someone who throws themselves with passion into doing the job.

Put another way, why should an employer with a stack of applicants pick those who aren't as motivated or qualified as others? That is why entry-level positions require 3 years of experience.

Re: 61% of “Entry-Level” Jobs Require 3+ Years of Experience

#166

Post by jmadsen »

It seems to me the whole problem amounts to companies deciding to redefine the word "entry", then acting all disappointed when no one else uses that definition.

"Entry" means "to enter the workforce". It means you have pre-work experience such as a specific degree, speak a certain language, etc.

If you advertise an "entry level web development" job and I just boot camped for that, I am qualified and will apply.

If you want "Junior Developer", say so.

(Comment by someone that this is a gimmick to reduce salary sounds pretty right on.)

Re: 61% of “Entry-Level” Jobs Require 3+ Years of Experience

#168

Post by sotojuan »

bcheung wrote: post #12
crimsonalucard wrote: post #2

I get it though. The employer is thinking: Why do I pay you to train you? You should pay me to train you. Lets bring back the apprentice system.

I've said the same thing myself about bringing back the apprenticeship system. That system required a contract of typically 7 years though and that is why masters would take on apprentices. 7 years is a long time but if there is a way to have your investment not just walk out the door after you spent a bunch of resources getting them up to speed that would make it much more feasible. Perhaps a forgivable loan upon co…

A big chunk of the tech industry doesn't think in 7+ years long terms. They think in "next seed round" terms. Therefore, they want senior devs now so they build whatever they need to hopefully hit the user count for the next seed round.

If your company thinks short term (e.g. next 2 years) like most tech startups do, hiring juniors and training is out of the question.

Re: 61% of “Entry-Level” Jobs Require 3+ Years of Experience

#169

Post by [deleted] »

jamestimmins wrote: post #27

The buried lede here seems to be "In real life, folks need to apply to 150-250 jobs to get a job". I'd be so, so interested to see the breakdown here, and what causes these types of numbers. Are there just enormous numbers of applicants for every job? Are people applying for jobs they aren't qualified for? How does this compare in tech vs the rest of the job market? The signal/noise ratio must be absurdly low if this…

[deleted]

Re: 61% of “Entry-Level” Jobs Require 3+ Years of Experience

#170

Post by IncRnd »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #94
StaticRedux wrote: post #72

3+ years doesn't mean 3+ years "in a job". That makes no sense. (Well, maybe for some companies it does, but you don't want to work there anyways). For some reason people can never get over that. It means 3+ years with a technology. It means don't walk in the door out of a Java college having used nothing else and apply to work on a Triple A game written in C++. It means don't show up after a weekend html course and…

Bull. I've been using Python since high school, but very few employers I've ever spoken to were willing to actually label me as having any years of experience in Python.

You need to be able to convince an employer that your experience is valid, that you can work on their critical code base without destroying their customer base and income stream. If you can't demonstrate your experience through results that you've achieved, that's the same as having zero years of python experience.
Post reply on HN