A new grad's compensation is often equal and some times greater than someone who's been in the trenches for 20 years. I don't know any other profession with this absurd inversion. And with a few notable exceptions, the idea that someone with 5 years of experience is Senior-anything is ridiculous. I remember myself at 5 years out, I didn't know shit compared to today. Yet, adjusted for location-cost of living and inflation, I'm making today about what I made back then. The compensation plateau is very real, I assure you. You'll probably find out in 20 years or so.
EDIT: There also wouldn't be so much persistent discussion about ageism in tech either, if experience was valued/compensated.
I've definitely been part of a hiring process where "over-experienced" gets thrown around a lot. Here's stuff that comes up all the time:
- The main and probably unfair assumption that they will want more money and special treatment for the same amount of grunt work.
- They will not respect the (majority 20-something) peers and will try to subtly enforce seniority (again, unfair).
- They will refuse to do grunt work and only want to work on high level problems. We have enough chefs, we need line cooks.
- Veterans can come well-seasoned, but they can also be old cranks who are stuck in their ways and can drag a team backwards. It takes experience to tell the difference (irony).
- If they were truly experienced, they would be getting poached or going through a headhunter. If they are experienced and on the market, they must be damaged good. (This one is truly unfair, but it justifies people relying on paying the premium for a recruiter).
> If they were truly experienced, they would be getting poached or going through a headhunter.
Huh, is that very common?
As someone with 10 years of experience but very little job-hopping (perhaps to my detriment) I always had this feeling that recruiters were a bit like dodgy car salesman, and that a direct application would be better.
There are advantages to the recruiter too (for instance, it's easier to h ave frank conversations about questions like "how much will they pay?" very early in the process) and some recruiters are better than others. Of course your incentives aren't quite aligned and you need to be aware of it, but it's not necessarily a bad move to try using one.
Good recruiters are excellent networkers who are in touch with the most exciting businesses in your area and field of expertise. I've only met one but if I ever find myself looking for a job then I'll be talking with him.
Nor should it. You should be payed for the type of work you do and there is only so much an individual contributor can do. However, at big companies, there are many levels and compensation ranges by a factor of 10 from the lowest level to the highest. You can make those big pay bumps but you have to perform at the required skills for the next level for which there are only so many available positions.
And from what I have experienced, while individuals can stall in their career progression if they don't pursue the responsibilities required for the next level, the higher ups are extremely correlated with experience.
My impression is that coding requires more energy and enthusiasm (so, in other words, internal motivation) to do a good job than many other professions. Hence 5 year exp "senior" can do a better job than a jaded and complacent 15 year exp one.
I don't know about that. Surely expertise can make up for "energy and enthusiasm" (even after decades nobody knows everything about programming). It sounds a little like a post hoc justification of age discrimination.
In my impression, people who have been coding for 5 years already have plenty of experience, esp. if they are enthusiastic about learning. They may not be team lead material yet, but they should make a fine individual contributor.
A new grad's compensation is often equal and some times greater than someone who's been in the trenches for 20 years. I don't know any other profession with this absurd inversion. And with a few notable exceptions, the idea that someone with 5 years of experience is Senior-anything is ridiculous. I remember myself at 5 years out, I didn't know shit compared to today. Yet, adjusted for location-cost of living and inflation, I'm making today about what I made back then. The compensation plateau is very real, I assure you. You'll probably find out in 20 years or so.
EDIT: There also wouldn't be so much persistent discussion about ageism in tech either, if experience was valued/compensated.