3 ms·

While the experienced worker might be useless for a company, with the unexperienced worker we know that he will be useless. The experience companys need is the

While the experienced worker might be useless for a company, with the unexperienced worker we know that he will be useless. The experience companys need is the kind of knowledge you can't learn at school, not even from hobby-projects. You need to learn it under the specific pressure of a workplace inside the general conditions of a company. Because the most important part for a company is not how good the worker is, but how much negative impact the worker has on the company. The unexperienced worker is someone who will drain worktime of other, for training and because of failures that happen. The experienced worker will drain much less, maybe even none, so he is less damaging for a company. And how smart or skilled someone might be, gaining this experience is only possible through time. So someone with less or no experience is also less valuable for a company, and more damaging.

muzani 9y ago
The bar for 'experienced' variees a lot though. Someone with 0 months of experience is useless. But I've seen plenty of people with 3 months experience do better than people with 3 years experience. Some also have dealt with logic or projects at a much younger age or in college (like college is supposed to do)
- PurpleRamen 9y ago
  Yes, there is no way to measure personality and general experience. So it's of course not a perfect solution. But it's sane defensive solution. It filters out the exceptions in both directions and gives a good baseline of ability you can except from the people. If this doesn't work, you can also go lower. It should be also noted that "x years epxerience" is not always a hard rule, but just a guidance. It should specifically drive those away who are lacking the confidence and knowledge about the job. Someone with just 2-3 years could be equal good for a job. > Some also have dealt with logic or projects at a much younger age or in college (like college is supposed to do) As said, the experience learned under the pressure of a workplace is quite different from the experience learned at a lazy school- or hobby-project. School and hobby only teaches the basics and is more acceptable to failures. But companys are seeking the masters, for which experience is neccessary. Of course there are always exceptions, but those exceptions usually can present some kind of experience, so they kind of automatically fall out of the scope of the question. Someone working x years activly on a bigger project should put it into his vita, so that he can sell this experience.
  - warrenm 9y ago
    >It should be also noted that "x years epxerience" is not always a hard rule, but just a guidance. Absolutely: if a place is looking for 10 years of experience in software development, and you have 6-7 but apply, you have a chance of being considered. If you never apply, you have no chance of being considered. In some ways it's like the truism that lottery vendors bandy about, "you can't win if you don't play".
- warrenm 9y ago
  >I've seen plenty of people with 3 months experience do better than people with 3 years experience. Some also have dealt with logic or projects at a much younger age or in college That's the undefined - and, most often, unencompassable - aspect of informal experience. Personal example: I was doing pretty intense C++ programming starting when I was about 13 as first an apprentice, and then a "real" developer on a finite element analysis program. I wrote the 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D mesh generators. I learned a couple DOS graphics packages for visualizing the mesh, the analysis, and the results. None of that was especially documentable: it took going through school and blowing most of my programming courses out of the water to get the formal experience. And, because I was doing this as a hobby/side-project with a friend, I was also missing a lot of what most people would think are core aspects of programming (didn't learn recursion, for example, until my second year in college - a solid 5+ years after it would have made our project far more manageable and expandable).

muzani 9y ago

The bar for 'experienced' variees a lot though. Someone with 0 months of experience is useless. But I've seen plenty of people with 3 months experience do better than people with 3 years experience. Some also have dealt with logic or projects at a much younger age or in college (like college is supposed to do)

PurpleRamen 9y ago
Yes, there is no way to measure personality and general experience. So it's of course not a perfect solution. But it's sane defensive solution. It filters out the exceptions in both directions and gives a good baseline of ability you can except from the people. If this doesn't work, you can also go lower. It should be also noted that "x years epxerience" is not always a hard rule, but just a guidance. It should specifically drive those away who are lacking the confidence and knowledge about the job. Someone with just 2-3 years could be equal good for a job. > Some also have dealt with logic or projects at a much younger age or in college (like college is supposed to do) As said, the experience learned under the pressure of a workplace is quite different from the experience learned at a lazy school- or hobby-project. School and hobby only teaches the basics and is more acceptable to failures. But companys are seeking the masters, for which experience is neccessary. Of course there are always exceptions, but those exceptions usually can present some kind of experience, so they kind of automatically fall out of the scope of the question. Someone working x years activly on a bigger project should put it into his vita, so that he can sell this experience.
- warrenm 9y ago
  >It should be also noted that "x years epxerience" is not always a hard rule, but just a guidance. Absolutely: if a place is looking for 10 years of experience in software development, and you have 6-7 but apply, you have a chance of being considered. If you never apply, you have no chance of being considered. In some ways it's like the truism that lottery vendors bandy about, "you can't win if you don't play".
warrenm 9y ago
>I've seen plenty of people with 3 months experience do better than people with 3 years experience. Some also have dealt with logic or projects at a much younger age or in college That's the undefined - and, most often, unencompassable - aspect of informal experience. Personal example: I was doing pretty intense C++ programming starting when I was about 13 as first an apprentice, and then a "real" developer on a finite element analysis program. I wrote the 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D mesh generators. I learned a couple DOS graphics packages for visualizing the mesh, the analysis, and the results. None of that was especially documentable: it took going through school and blowing most of my programming courses out of the water to get the formal experience. And, because I was doing this as a hobby/side-project with a friend, I was also missing a lot of what most people would think are core aspects of programming (didn't learn recursion, for example, until my second year in college - a solid 5+ years after it would have made our project far more manageable and expandable).