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

211–220 of 364 posts

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

#211

Post by watwut »

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?

Yes you can. Many people work in tech and are not passionate. And plenty of them are very good and responsible.

Tech is not something special, you can lean it like anything else.

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

#212

Post by rrich »

all_blue_chucks wrote: post #142
your-nanny wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did that and ended up homeless in L.A. for a summer.

Where I work, if college kids do well in their internships they get offers before they even graduate.

"Where I work?" So what's the lesson, are you trying to project one? Don't end up homeless in CA when your internship goes south, because of?

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

#213

Post by grzm »

bweitzman wrote: post #201
grzm wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, pe…

The word caries with it a history of a workforce dominated by men. If there's going to be a new made up system for standardizing and measuring the proficiency of software developers, then we may as well make up new words too that don't have this baggage.

I agree that language is important for effective communication. I also am cognizant of how language changes over time, in meaning, connotation, usage, morphology. One can find problematic usage in a lot of places if one chooses to look. I don't believe that's what you're doing here, and don't mean to put forth some reductio ad absurdum argument. I'm interested to learn what heuristic you use to decide what language is acceptable and what needs to be changed. Would you mind sharing?

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

#214

Post by sb8244 »

watwut wrote: post #209
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 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?

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

#215

Post by nopassion »

stevenwoo wrote: post #90
nopassion wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work on email archival. Anyone who says they’re passionate about that is either lying or doped up on barbiturates.

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?"

Interesting about the diversity one. I’m slightly curious about which company it is (obviously don’t share if you’re uncomfortable), because we’re apparently going to add almost the same question to our application. It’s all very political. It has nothing to do with finding good software devs and everything to do with making sure people conform to a very narrow political view. I’m actually surprised we haven’t been sued yet.

And as far as email archival, it was an archival appliance. I had an internship in school and that was the team they put me on. I worked on it full-time after graduation.

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

#217

Post by lobotryas »

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?

Anecdata: to me and others I've spoken to 'passion' is short hand for a person having personal work standards. i.e.: a person who won't half-ass their work, who'll often go the extra distance for polish or feature completion, and who'll proactively help raise issues if their experience indicates the team is heading down the wrong path.

And yes, a person who'll very occasionally stay late and pitch in when the whole team is crunching on something.

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

#218

Post by watwut »

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?

It is startup with little experience, so if you act confident and never go against leadership they will think that you know everything. There were also people with 0 experience and 1.5 is significantly more then that.

I am confident in claiming that title was dependent more on confidence then skills. You got it basically for never admitting you don't know something.

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

#219

Post by williamscales »

vokep wrote: post #140
aviraldg wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does internship experience really count though, in terms of requirements listed on job descriptions?

none of it really counts. What really counts is your skills and ability to confidently talk about them. Or put differently, its your choice if internship or whatever experience really counts. You also have to convince the prospective employer to respect your choice, but if you can confidently represent yourself that may be easier than you think.

Definitely. It's all about learning a lot and then speaking with the confidence and ability of someone who knows what they're doing and comes across as able to learn more.

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

#220

Post by gcatalfamo »

bweitzman wrote: post #180
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",…

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

Journeyperson? Next we’re gonna call mom and dad “parent and parent”
Post reply on HN