Age discrimination is based on a fact you can't do anything about, your age. A company's culture is very important, a vital aspect of its identity. If you aren't open to making a change then you probably don't belong. Anyway, a lot of things people my age and older like are just the things 20 year olds liked when they were 20.
Is everyone being super-stoked about Star Wars and Breaking Bad really a vital aspect of a company's identity? Is a shared passion for ping-pong over lunchtime really an important part of a company's continued success?
In my personal experience, I've learned a huge amount from coworkers with whom I had very little in common besides the shared dedication to shipping great product.
Here's my challenge to everyone on HN - "culture fit" isn't intrinsically a bad thing, but the term is vague and encourages all kinds of intellectually dishonest cowardice.
Stop using "culture fit" and instead use specific observations. "This person has poor hygiene" is a valid observation, "This person defended some really bad code despite reasonable criticism", "This person was openly hostile to one of the interviewers", etc.
"Culture fit" is a weasel word that is vague - sometimes intentionally so - and largely useless. Specify why someone is a bad culture fit with concrete observations. And hey, sometimes when you are specific to yourself you'll find problems in your own thinking (e.g., "This person totally glazed over at the pop culture references I made." doesn't even begin to pass a sanity check, but accounts for a lot of "bad culture fit" decisions).
At this point, for me personally, nerd culture in general can go fuck itself. It's just no fun anymore now that it's more or less a job requirement.
At my present company the upper management is constantly trying to make jokes that the 20-somethings will get. That includes movie references and things which you know some of them don't really get (especially when they say "I'm told you all will find this hilarious"). It shows a willingness of those older, experienced people to adjust their presentation to the "culture" of the current employees. The overall culture of the company is still to have a lot of fun, just the jokes change a little as time goes on.
We apparently care more about Star Trek and culture fit than we do about writing maintainable code, selling product, or anything else we don't talk about much.
I now hate Star Trek (and I used to like it). :( :(
It's a really delicate balance. "culture" can mean speed. I don't know of many organizations that do this, but it's certainly possible. OTOH, that locks you into a specific worldview, and can make you blind to problems. Diverse backgrounds make organizations much more aware, but less able to communicate that information quickly.
An example is when someone picks up a new language, and they try to explain the new constructs and philosophies behind the language. It takes a long time to explain why mapcar is cool.
After all, they grew up with the series.
This is a different argument than one about age discrimination. Whatever the culture a company and its employees adopt, my point is that it isn't necessarily age discrimination if you are getting the "not a good culture fit" feedback. It's not the number of years you've been alive so much as an attitude, which is something you can change. If you're unwilling to, fine. If this makes you mad, I'm sorry. However your emotions sway you, it is still not age discrimination.
The law may not agree with you. Ever heard of disparate impact? "In United States anti-discrimination law, the theory of disparate impact holds that practices in employment, housing, or other areas may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate "adverse impact" on persons in a protected class"
People over 40 are a protected class in US employment law.
Now, policies that can adversely affect a protected class are ok as long as there is a legitimate job requirement. For example, being able to lift 50 pounds may be a job requirement that adversely impacts women and the disabled but its ok as long as the job actually requires heavy lifting on a very regular basis.
Otherwise people are free to implement policies that are code for discrimination such as "able to lift 50 pounds" for a desk job.
You'd have to prove in court a legitimate job requirement. I think proving" likes ping pong and beers after work" being a businesses concern may be an uphill battle even if you call it "attitude."
Once you realize your hiring practices may exclude a protected class you really gotta do a second look over and ask yourself if it is really a business requirement. Other shops are able to ship products with more diversity and less ping pong.
The point is is that if you're targeting people who behave like you, have plenty of shared interests and reflect your own way of doing things, those people are going to end up looking a lot like you too.
I think the point that potatolicious is trying to make is that the ambiguity of "cultural fit" ends up becoming a path to hiring people who are very similar to yourself. An alternative approach would be to define explicit, concrete values that your company and team reflect, and look for hires that mirror those values instead of nebulous "cultural" fit.
And once again, with the supposed shortage of engineers, why isn't the company adapting?
Why does the image of a party of wizards that forgot to bring the fighters, clerics, and rogues come to my head?