4 ms·

It could also be that she has missed out on relevant experience due to the time spent child-rearing.

tomp 11y ago
This argument is reasonable on the surface, but when you think about it a bit more, it seems quite unlikely that missing 2 years of work 20 years ago would result in lack of relevant experience... Most people never have 20 years of experience (more like 20 times 1 year of experience); furthermore, whatever experience another person might have had 20 years ago is most likely either forgotten or completely irrelevant by now.
- mistersquid 11y ago
  > This argument is reasonable on the surface, but when you think about it a bit more, it seems quite unlikely that missing 2 years of work 20 years ago would result in lack of relevant experience... I don't think the article states precisely how much time, whether 2 years or 20, Colafrancesco took off from work to raise her children. However, that's not to justify unequal hiring practices if and where such details keep employers from hiring Colafrancesco and women in similar positions.
- cbr 11y ago
  Trying to match her linkedin profile [1] to the article, it sounds like she worked in reinsurance from 1980-2003 (age 23-46), took time off to care for kids, and started substitute teaching a few days a week in 2007 (age 50). Not working within your field for the last 13 years does seem like it would have a large effect on experience; this is getting close to your "whatever experience another person might have had 20 years ago is most likely either forgotten or completely irrelevant by now". [1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/lynn-colafrancesco-5800163 https://www.linkedin.com/in/lynn-colafrancesco-5800163
- morgante 11y ago
  I don't necessarily agree with the argument, but I do see where employers might be coming from. She likely took off a lot more than 2 years (cbr says 13). Not working in your field for 13 years is a pretty easy way to fall out of touch with the latest practices. Employers should treat her fairly, which would probably be treating her like a slightly above entry level candidate, since so much of her experience is so dated. If they're refusing to hire her at all, that's a problem. But if they're not valuing her experience from 13 years ago as equal to experience from last year, I understand.

tomp 11y ago

This argument is reasonable on the surface, but when you think about it a bit more, it seems quite unlikely that missing 2 years of work 20 years ago would result in lack of relevant experience... Most people never have 20 years of experience (more like 20 times 1 year of experience); furthermore, whatever experience another person might have had 20 years ago is most likely either forgotten or completely irrelevant by now.

mistersquid 11y ago
> This argument is reasonable on the surface, but when you think about it a bit more, it seems quite unlikely that missing 2 years of work 20 years ago would result in lack of relevant experience... I don't think the article states precisely how much time, whether 2 years or 20, Colafrancesco took off from work to raise her children. However, that's not to justify unequal hiring practices if and where such details keep employers from hiring Colafrancesco and women in similar positions.
cbr 11y ago
Trying to match her linkedin profile [1] to the article, it sounds like she worked in reinsurance from 1980-2003 (age 23-46), took time off to care for kids, and started substitute teaching a few days a week in 2007 (age 50). Not working within your field for the last 13 years does seem like it would have a large effect on experience; this is getting close to your "whatever experience another person might have had 20 years ago is most likely either forgotten or completely irrelevant by now". [1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/lynn-colafrancesco-5800163 https://www.linkedin.com/in/lynn-colafrancesco-5800163
morgante 11y ago
I don't necessarily agree with the argument, but I do see where employers might be coming from. She likely took off a lot more than 2 years (cbr says 13). Not working in your field for 13 years is a pretty easy way to fall out of touch with the latest practices. Employers should treat her fairly, which would probably be treating her like a slightly above entry level candidate, since so much of her experience is so dated. If they're refusing to hire her at all, that's a problem. But if they're not valuing her experience from 13 years ago as equal to experience from last year, I understand.