Yet, I am scared to loose my job. I don't know if the recruiter will look past my age and lack of trendy technologies in my resume.
Yet, I am scared to loose my job. I don't know if the recruiter will look past my age and lack of trendy technologies in my resume.
1. Remove everything from your resume past 6 or so years in the past. Put a little note at the bottom saying that your extended work history is available upon request. Nobody wants to read a resume over 1 page anyway.
2. Don't list any years on your education--just list the institutions. That's an easy way to leak your age.
3. Regularly scrub for "outdated" technologies and topics. Instead of writing perl scripts to parse log files and output reports with Tcl/Tk, you were a full-stack developer who processed data analytics from critical business infrastructure.
Is that weekends are for? I do that too but do wonder at times...
I think what software developers need is some perspective. We aren't the only ones who have to spend time outside of work on keeping our skills sharp and learning new stuff.
Doctor is more "trustworthy" (perception-wise) as they get older while Developer is more in-demand when they're younger.
Doctor also technically made way more money than Developer (in general though, the statement may not stand if you compare Silicon Valley but you get the idea, even in other countries, Doctor probably made more than Developer).
Doctor also keep their job longer than Developer.
Doctor can read but does not necessarily have to demonstrate that to their prospective employers while Developer can't just say "I read Objective-C for Dummies therefore I am an expert of Objective-C".
These were just ones of many things that I can think of.
They are for doing what you want to do. Sometimes I code all weekend for fun, or go in the boat or sleep or play Diablo all day. But the reason why many people on this site are good at what they do is because they love doing it. Even if I was not paid to code, I would still immerse myself in coding (and IT in general). I am fortunate enough to love doing something that also can pay well.
As long as you have the drive (motivation can be different - some ppl like to hack, some are worried about their next gig etc) - this shouldn't be a problem.
Fair, desirable, optimal? All debatable depending on one's perspective, but unstoppable. I think the only way we'll be able to get a handle on it is to manage its effects through policy (which has to happen eventually, given how many people will be affected, and how few will actually be able to be one of the "superstars"), rather than turning this train around.
The first is a proliferation of young founders who have no experience and thus no frame of reference to evaluate older developers, so they just pattern match on the new tech they are familiar with. Nothing really to be done about that since convincing twentysomethings (particularly SV funded ones) of their hubris is a sisyphean task, and in any case it leaves talent on the table for those of us who actually know the value of a dollar.
The second, more troubling factor is founders who actually understand the value of experience, but prefer to take advantage of ambitious kids who are willing to work extreme hours for little equity and less salary. All else being equal, it's easier to find strong talent that isn't aware of (or bad at negotiating) their own value at a young age compared to when they get old and jaded.
As slimy as that is, I think it's a somewhat self-correcting problem in that good programmers are still too thin on the ground and startups who pass over old or minority candidates that are actually good will be at a competitive disadvantage. There is certainly a flood of young people going into technology via bootcamps or other means, but my experience so far is that there is a natural and unquantifiable talent component to being a good programmer which can not be solved by education. I firmly believe anyone can learn to program, but only a minority can ever learn to program well. At the moment, I interpret having learned to program before "startups" became a career move as a strong positive signal; chalk one up for the olds!
The individual or even group decision-making (with regards to not just company goals, but to lifestyles and associations) means that things like that end up as a wash. Make it more concrete:
28 year old founder decides to pass on excellent 47 year old programmer. What does that do the founder's life or company? Let's speculate on some possibilities:
- It does nothing, because even though the older developer would have been better, their level of experience wasn't even necessary to do the job well.
- The business winds up marginally less profitable, but still succeeds.
- The business fails, somehow, because at the margin, missing out on hiring that older developer somehow started a chain of events that could have been prevented if said older developer were hired.
In all cases, the founder goes on to find another job, makes plenty of money, is able to surround themselves with the type of people they'd rather be around (people their own age) and never is even aware of any impact on anything. To that person, it was just "didn't hire someone, something happened or didn't, life went on well, and founder was still happy, ultimately."
What I'm saying is that the "disadvantage" and other related theories start sounding like a secular version of Karma; people use them as a way to tell themselves there will be justice (not that you're necessarily doing that, I have no idea), when in truth it's likely there will be none.
You can try to "prevent" the discrimination through your own actions, which is by no means easy (https://medium.com/@spencer_th0mas/dealing-with-ageism-in-te...), but as the article makes clear, even in egregious cases, it's hard to prove or do anything about. Look how long we've had these various kinds of incredibly well-intentioned anti-discrimination laws, and look at the success rates on the suits / how often they're brought. The results are terrible. It's just too hard to prove.
Here's how I think this could possibly play out: Facebook and Google start paying 21-year-old kids $200k directly out of school, startups start paying ridiculous unsustainable salaries based on VC salaries. Savvy founders and hiring managers at other companies realize they can't economically compete for 25-year-old golden boy talent and start looking at other demographics to find the talent. Over time those savvy companies will thrive while the others are crushed by having to pay for inferior talent at inflated prices with bubble-time VC funds.
Obviously this only works if people realize that older and minority talent is getting unduly passed over. And also I don't know how strong this effect will be or whether the existing tidal wave of bias is too overwhelming for such an anti-trend to even register in the marketplace. Whether or not this would even constitute justice goes beyond my thesis (I believe in ethical business, but justice is quite a tall order). Nevertheless, as a hiring manager, I see any market bias that I am aware of as a competitive advantage to me, and I'm convinced that effect is real no matter how small.
Broad correction, though, seems unlikely to happen, whether attempts are done via the market or via legislation.
1) I've never heard of,
2) or the needs to incorporate enterprise solution from back in the days (e.g.: form builder, complex enterprise frameworks, etc) doing some enterprise system
In most cases, again this is my anecdote, none of these developers pass the interview.
NodeJS was hot in the last 2 years (thought it has cool down a bit lately) but to me, NodeJS seems to have the risk of becoming one of those X[technology] revolution in which could lead to a negative signal if one has it in one's resume (plus it's a chance for me to grill candidate how good he/she is when it comes to JavaScript idioms, patterns, best-practices, automation-testing because at the moment, I know the majority of developers who put JavaScript on their resume don't actually practice "good hygiene" when it comes to JavaScript while I know for sure the number of Java developers whom I've interviewed before at least could demonstrate a better/solid software engineering skill).
Imagine a want ad for a carpenter: "Home builder wanted. MUST use Makita brand circular saw."
Occasionally I saw ads like that being posted by small game companies/digital marketing companies; they fall under the "fishy/avoid" type of companies.
Luckily the sane/majority of the companies here listed their main preferred technology.
Do not worry too much. Its much easier to "hack" dumb recruiters then C code.
As someone who recently graduated and is "one of them damn kids" - a lot of people from my graduating class know a lot more about marketing then actual programming.
Since 2008 - the world has became a much more cruel place - and that has forced many of us to graduating since then to play an arms race with "trends" - switch jobs constantly and be selfish.
The way I see anyone who has been writing production code since 1990 is a WW2 veteran. You guys have been through the PC revolution, Internet revolution, survived the dot com bubble, shipped code before git, stackoverflow.
I think if you projected that experience into confidence you could easily do whatever you wanted - you deserve it !
The resume doesn't need to 'look' trendy, but it can't look stale either.
I recognize you will probably make fewer dumb mistakes than a younger developer, and your experience probably enables you to learn new technologies faster (though I'd wonder if you didn't list any trendy technologies on your resume). On the flip side, if your resume showed a long period without any significant career advancement I might question your competence.
You should be able to show career advancement via the achievements you list for each position. There should generally be a trend towards increasing responsibility and successively more impressive feats at each stage. Some lateral movement is fine, but if that's all you've got it suggests that you lack focus/get bored easily.
What are we talking about here ? Comparing a developer with 10 year experience vs with 20 years ? Or one fresh out of school, with a senior developer ?
Because around here, your salary will be determined by your actual responsibilities and the only way for a guy with 20+ years of experience to make more than one with 5-10 years is to have been in that company for during those 20 years, accruing benefits.
Similarly, contract price are about the same. They haven't even raised much in the last 10 years. Unless you become consultant on a specific topic, you are getting paid the same regardless how much more experience you have over 3 years.
The inflexibility has a flip side too: a developer that has been developing for 20 years is most likely doing exactly what he wants to do. Can probably count on him to be there to see the project through production, and not having "move up" or strategically move to other office, technology stack, companies.