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

221–230 of 364 posts

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

#221

Post by abritinthebay »

rifung wrote: post #120
abritinthebay wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to have had some level of passion to bother learning about it. It takes time to learn a topic, that's a form of passion - a drive. That's not to say you have to burn all hours on it tho. Which I think is what you're assuming there. That's honestly somewhat unhealthy and only super passionate people (and lucky ones at that) can do that for any length of time.

Not really.. I have friends with no interest in computers but who studied CS because they knew it would lead to a well paying job. They work at Amazon and Google now so I guess it worked out for them. One requires motivation, but that motivation does not necessarily have to be interested or passion.

In that case they have a passion for making money ;)

That’s what motivated them to learn. I doubt that’s what causes them to stay. If it is tho... That’s enough.

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

#222

Post by raducu »

jmadsen wrote: post #166

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 yo…

"Entry level" means entry level pay, not experience :)

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

#223

Post by PeterStuer »

Over here the labels are 'junior', 'medior' and 'senior'.

They are primarily used as a pay-scale indicator. It's not that recruiters are dumb and looking for fresh graduates with 3 years of industrial work experience, it is that they are looking for people with 3 years of experience that will accept working in the 'junior' pay-scale knowing that it will be 2-3 years before they move up to the 'medior' payscale.

Many/most companies in the IT industry fail to have a decent technical 'ladder', so upping the 'label' once every two years while basically not changing the job is way of pretending that your developers are having a 'career'.

Traditional 'entry level' does not exist at most places as the bulk of companies don't want to pay for the training/mentoring phase. Too much overhead given the projected short career span.

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

#224

Post by bad_user »

epicureanideal wrote: post #176
Aloha wrote: 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.

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",…

There's nothing wrong with "Senior".

Lots of years of experience translate to having a proven track record of delivered value, along with management skills and experience of failure, things that can't be substituted by talent or knowledge acquired from reading about the works of others.

> a person with 3-4 years of experience to be a "Very Good Engineer"

Not the same thing — this is actually the same problem as with hiring practices that people love to hate. Good college degrees, open source contributions, algorithmic exercises during the interview, etc... are all designed to prove your worth. People don't like you for what you are, because you have to show them what you're capable of first. And with 3-4 years of experience, you can slap that "Master" label on your job title, but without being able to show something for it, people will just laugh at you.

Also this trend of disrespecting the elderly is nothing new. Ageism is a thing and your opinion is actually in line with what the entire world is already thinking. Younger means cheaper, more prone to abuse, to working long hours and for many tasks just as capable as a more expensive senior.

Of course, this is beneficial to young people, but the tragedy is that it doesn't last. You'll be playing a whole different tune in 5 years max, either because you'll end up competing with people that are 5 to 10 years younger and cheaper, or because the bubble will finally burst due to automation, leaving this sea of STEM graduates out of a job, just like steel workers in the nineties. We are automating ourselves as part of our job description, so it should be no surprise when it happens.

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

#225

Post by openIce »

bartread wrote: post #190
amorphid wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

EVEN AS A COLLEGE STUDENT I'm not going to do your coding assessment for free. There are plenty of workplaces that skip such bullshit and instead they talk with people and take a quick look at Github/past experience. I have more important things to do and recruiters keep emailing me about interviews every week.

And yeah, I have a job in software development.

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

#226

Post by dorgo »

sb8244 wrote: post #214
watwut wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen senior engineers with 1.5 years of experience and totally confident (in startup). And my lifelong experience is that such pepole have pretty good careers, better then humble more self aware people.

How did they get to be seniors in their companies? They didn't give the title to themselves, so someone must value their skills. Is having the title mutually exclusive to being humble or self aware?

Some years ago they introduced job titles at the place where I work. My boss asked me: which job title do you want? I said: senior developer. Her said: ok. Master of the universe would have passed too.

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

#227

Post by Chyzwar »

bad_user wrote: post #224
epicureanideal wrote: post #176

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",…

There's nothing wrong with " Senior ". Lots of years of experience translate to having a proven track record of delivered value, along with management skills and experience of failure, things that can't be substituted by talent or knowledge acquired from reading about the works of others. > a person with 3-4 years of experience to be a "Very Good Engineer" Not the same thing — this is actually the same problem as wit…

Lots of years of experience prove nothing. If someone was working for 10 years in Java backend apps, using outdated tech and in an environment that delivered value is secondary to risk, he/she is not senior.

3 years is minimum for getting close to being competent. I would argue that before that you will deliver very little.

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

#228

Post by icebraining »

dorgo wrote: post #226
sb8244 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did they get to be seniors in their companies? They didn't give the title to themselves, so someone must value their skills. Is having the title mutually exclusive to being humble or self aware?

Some years ago they introduced job titles at the place where I work. My boss asked me: which job title do you want? I said: senior developer. Her said: ok. Master of the universe would have passed too.

What about Software Wizard?

https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&stor....

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

#229

Post by icebraining »

kahnjw wrote: post #195
tomc1985 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think you are missing her point. She isn't saying that all passionate people are affluent white males. My interpretation is that passion in a swe job description is code for affluent white male. I think she has a point, individuals who have time for passion projects, self study, or other endeavors are privileged. Many of them are white, male, and affluent.

I think the problem is that she falls in the same error as the companies she's criticizing - she conflates passion with external signals like "spending a lot of time on personal projects". At first she uses quotes around "passionate", which seems to distinguish the two, but then she fully conflates them. Inevitably, she will rile up those of us who were passioned about tech despite not having the means to dedicate ourselves to it.

Which is a shame, because her point that filtering candidates based on their dedication of personal time to tech is discriminatory is valid.

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

#230

Post by greatartiste »

If you are applying for a job remember that frequently the job description will have been "improved" by a HR drone with little else to do who adds words and phrases she doesn't understand but thinks should be in a job advertisement.

I had this happen last year when I needed a junior team member (electronics/IT). I wrote a job description saying no experience needed but you must be able to demonstrate an interest in the field so hobby/side project whatever. Without asking me HR "improved" this by saying 3 years experience was needed but the salary remained at entry level so we had very few applicants.

Thankfully HR aren't involved in the choosing who to interview stage so I can choose using my original criteria. When it came to the interview day someone from HR is there but they are usually pretty clueless and if they are given some busy work to do we can choose who we want.

So be aware this happens and if you want an entry level job just go for it.

Post reply on HN