4 ms·

> the official "Senior Engineer" title oh right, the OFFICIAL one. Sure. > falls roughly in the middle (slightly on the lower side) of the career ladder[1].

by serge2k 10y ago

> the official "Senior Engineer" title oh right, the OFFICIAL one. Sure. > falls roughly in the middle (slightly on the lower side) of the career ladder[1]. Not really, as the upper levels aren't reached by most people.

lliamander 10y ago
> oh right, the OFFICIAL one. Sure. Not official in the sense of "there is some standards committee making these designations", but it seems to be a commonly accepted practice that the title of "Senior Engineer" is assigned to someone who "is capable of being given a high level (and often vague) task, and work completely independently on it and finish it" but not anything more. But my main concern was distinguishing between the title and the role. When I think of the role, I think we generally consider someone to be senior when they can: a) work through very thorny technical problems and find novel solutions b) connect technical solutions to the needs of the business c) provide leadership or mentoring to other engineers Like or not (I don't, personally) the title and the role use the same words but mean different things. > Not really, as the upper levels aren't reached by most people. I'm not clear on what your point is. Is it in the middle of most people's career? No. Is it in the middle of most technical career ladders (as used in various tech companies)? Yes. My point is that in places where there is a technical career ladder, there are titles that do actually reflect (what I consider to be) the role of a senior engineer. This is how tech companies get around the fact that convention has lowered the expectations of the title Senior Engineer. The core problem is that there is confusion about the relationship between title and role. The OP is trying to fix this confusion by raising the standards of the title to match the role (by explaining what the role really entails). I'm just trying to clarify the conventions set by the industry so that people can plan their careers accordingly.

by serge2k 10y ago

lliamander 10y ago

> oh right, the OFFICIAL one. Sure. Not official in the sense of "there is some standards committee making these designations", but it seems to be a commonly accepted practice that the title of "Senior Engineer" is assigned to someone who "is capable of being given a high level (and often vague) task, and work completely independently on it and finish it" but not anything more. But my main concern was distinguishing between the title and the role. When I think of the role, I think we generally consider someone to be senior when they can: a) work through very thorny technical problems and find novel solutions b) connect technical solutions to the needs of the business c) provide leadership or mentoring to other engineers Like or not (I don't, personally) the title and the role use the same words but mean different things. > Not really, as the upper levels aren't reached by most people. I'm not clear on what your point is. Is it in the middle of most people's career? No. Is it in the middle of most technical career ladders (as used in various tech companies)? Yes. My point is that in places where there is a technical career ladder, there are titles that do actually reflect (what I consider to be) the role of a senior engineer. This is how tech companies get around the fact that convention has lowered the expectations of the title Senior Engineer. The core problem is that there is confusion about the relationship between title and role. The OP is trying to fix this confusion by raising the standards of the title to match the role (by explaining what the role really entails). I'm just trying to clarify the conventions set by the industry so that people can plan their careers accordingly.