Live data from Hacker News

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

talent.works

181–190 of 364 posts

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

#181
post #46

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…

I've similarly always struggled to make sense of these kinds of claims, because in my life so far I was offered a job every time I applied, so I'm wondering if I'm either living in an area where the job market is much less competitive or if I'm aiming too low. It's out of the question that I'm some kind of hotshot, on the contrary my CV is a mess and I dropped out ouf college.

Jesus! That's really awesome!

I'm at ~700 jobs and only had 1 offer that was pretty bad. (Optics and/or Bio-tech)

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

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think part of the problem is the titles themselves... "Senior" implies "Highly Experienced" meaning "lots of years of experience". Whereas it's completely possible for a person with 3-4 years of experience to be a "Very Good Engineer" within their specific domain and be as valuable, respected, listened-to, etc. as a "Senior Engineer". It doesn't happen often, but it happens. If we had titles more like "Apprentice",…

Those titles are gendered, unfortunately. If we want such a system, we should adopt new titles that are more inclusive.

AFAICS, the only one that's explicitly gendered is "journeyman". We've had a pretty good track record swapping out "person" in such situations when it's an issue. One might take issue with "master", and some senses of "master" are gendered, but some are not, such as senses 1c (particularly applicable here) and 1d:

> "c : a worker or artisan qualified to teach apprentices (see 1apprentice 1b)"

> "d (1) : an artist, performer, or player of consummate (see 1consummate 1) skill (2) : a great figure of the past (as in science or art) whose work serves as a model or ideal"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master

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

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you get hired for email archival? Started looking at online applications and every single one has something like "Why do you want to work for us?" and yesterday I saw "How do you add to our diversity?"

What's the problem with those questions?

Sorry, was trying to figure out how the commenter got past those filtering questions.

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

#185
post #179
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Entry Level ought to be 'willing to train', Junior, some experience, Senior, 8+ years of experience. Sadly title inflation is also a thing.

Was going to non-helpfully comment that as the title says: 61% of "Entry-Level" Jobs require 3+ years of Experience And of "Senior Software Engineer" jobs require only 3 years of Experience. In the Bay Area culture, 3 years is enough time to jump jobs once: year 1 = figure out how to navigate tech corp year 2 = figure out that it's a sh!t show. year 3 = jump and find greener pastures. repeat year 1.

It isn’t the worst thing to have a progression you can step up through every couple of years. The problem is that there needs to be many more degrees of “Eng II” before invoking the word Senior. If Senior came after Eng 5 or something it might not be so bad.

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

#186
post #149

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

I am not sure this lady knows what it means to be passionate then. Dismissing passion as the domain of stuffy white men is to dismissing anyone with an overridingly strong interest in anything

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

#187
I have heard that in many cases, these are actually H1B/Visa positions, where they can set requirements that no one realistically hit, then use that to cover that position with a visa. Reason being, then you can say "no qualified applicants".

Is there any truth to this? Or is it just FUD?

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

#188
post #48

There is an interesting catch-22 I've experienced regarding a recommendation the article makes - if you remove things like graduation dates, previous positions / etc. once you reach a certain age (35+ per the article), potential employers now don't have that information. The catch-22 is, if you're not careful, now employers may think you are NOT senior and so you may be able to get a job, however, it might not be app…

Definitely not just a promotion. We're a mission-driven company and a we've explicitly chosen as a company to share our learnings with folks (even if it reduces our competitive edge a tiny bit) because we believe it's important to good. Not quite open source, but maybe open knowledge? And while it's nowhere near peer-reviewed academic paper quality (we won't be submitting to Nature or NIPS anytime soon), my personal…

I've always found the truth and good intention to be the best sales tools, so I admire your approach!!!

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

#189
post #8

I dont really understand what the problem is. If a job says 3 year experience "required", it just means they want people that know what they're doing. If you worked a few summers and are good at something you're qualified to apply.

the problem is that the job is titled "entry level" and then asks for 3 years experience. It's a bait'n'switch that wastes everybody's time.

If they only wanted a few summers worth of internships etc they should say that, 3 years experience is commonly interpreted as 3 years continuous on the job experience.

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

#190

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…

I was a recruiter for 8 years, and maybe 1 in 100 applications turned into a hire. I suspect a big factor is the barrier to entry for applying has been lowered. Just fill out a quick form and click submit, so people will apply to any job that looks remotely relevant. An increase in applications makes sifting through those applications increasingly burdensome, and tools have not really made mentally parsing a resume e…

You're spot on with that ratio and, as you say, it can become utterly draining. Depending on the number of applicants I'm getting, I developed a way of dealing with the problem that works well for software engineers:

FOR LOTS OF APPLICANTS

Send every single applicant a nice, warm email with a link to a coding assessment[1]. Doesn't have to be anything particularly in-depth: just something that requires an hour or two's work from the candidate.

Result: all the people who put slapdash applications together will self-select out at this stage (you won't even hear back from them) and you don't have to send rejections. This will probably eliminate 95% of candidates right out of the gate for you, and when you have 500 applicants in a single month this is going to make your job a lot easier. You'll be left with 25 people who are genuinely interested and, depending on what you're looking for, you might have 10 that are worth interviewing.

IMPORTANT: for the relatively small number you reject at the assessment stage, you should send them some real, and reasonably detailed, feedback as to why. This will generally take around half an hour per applicant. People don't do this out of fear of getting into an argument with the candidate (and, of course, because they don't have time): in practice this seldom happens, and can be diffused quickly when it does. Most candidates appreciate the feedback and, key point, you won't start dehumanising applicants and turning yourself into a worse human being.

FOR FEW APPLICANTS

If you're not doing an up-front assessment, which we don't at the moment because we're a relatively unknown company so we want to make it as easy as possible for people to apply, send everyone a nice email inviting them to a 20-30 minute telescreen.

Your email should lay out the format of the telescreen: we'll spend some time finding out more about your experience, and do a screenshare (or Google Doc share) on a short programming task.

Result: all the lazy or uninterested applicants will again opt out, doing most of your work for you.

KEY POINTS

- In both cases you can focus your finite time and energy on the better candidates, rather than on sifting out the worst.

- You can give every applicant a more positive experience overall (think how many times you've heard the complaint, "I applied for X job and the company never even got back to me"). You also avoid ever having to send out those crappy two-line pro forma rejection emails that just about everyone hates.

- It'll keep you more positive and energetic because you're not spending loads of time having to be critical and negative about swathes of applications, and the people you do end up interacting with, you actually have the time to invest in ensuring that they have a positive experience, whether you offer them the job or not. This is hugely important because I think, of all the jobs I've done - and, granted, this does depend somewhat on your personality and temperament - recruitment is the one with the greatest capacity to turn you into the kind of person you wouldn't like very much (I realised it was happening for me when I did a long secondment in recruitment for a previous employer).

- By giving everyone a positive experience you'll gain a better reputation for your company, which should translate into attracting better candidates. Certainly, the other way, word travels, and if you offer a ghastly candidate experience people will be put off applying. If you're Google you can get away with it because so many great people want to work for you regardless of how drawn-out and overwrought the process is, so it doesn't matter that some great people will be put off because of the process (still I don't recommend it, and I question the value of all the hoop-jumping). If nobody's heard of you, making the process straightforward and pleasant is the way to go.

[1] This might sound cynical but you can totally automate this process, and if you're getting that many applicants it's probably worthwhile: just make sure the emails go out within business hours, and that there's at least a few hours lag between an application being submitted and the email response going out, so it feels like it's from a human being. Also, and this goes without saying: use the applicant's name. Lots of ATS's don't (or didn't) have APIs, but since you'll only need to target (say) Firefox, browser automation with something like Selenium can work really well here.

Post reply on HN