6 ms·

I get it though. The employer is thinking: Why do I pay you to train you? You should pay me to train you. Lets bring back the apprentice system.

lazypenguin 9y ago
That's not the issue, the issue is the terminology. If you don't want to pay to train someone then don't label it an "entry-level" position. The truth is that many want "mid-level/senior-level" employees (3+ year experience requirements) at "entry-level" salaries.
- PeterisP 9y ago
  Look at it from the perspective of a "career in this organization", not "career of this person". It is an entry level job - it's the lowest tier in their ranking, it's the starting place, it's literally the level where new people enter the organization; it's the lowest paid and least respected position they have, filled with the least experienced and least tenured people in the whole company. It's just that they (want to) start with people who have worked (somewhere else) for a few years already; but that does not and can not make it a mid-tier job, that would require them to have other, even lower jobs. Furthermore, saying that 3 years might be a senior level position is stretching definitions - assuming an average lifetime career of 30 years, someone with 3 years experience has less "seniority" than 90% of the workforce.
  - RbrtM 9y ago
    These days your tech career ends at 35, so an average lifetime career lasts 10-12 years.
    - paulie_a 9y ago
      That is laughable. While age doesn't really matter, true senior talent doesn't even begin until someone has worked for at least a decade, which puts most people in their early to mid 30s
      - AstralStorm 9y ago
        Depends on when one has started but yes, the expected age in my experience is around 7 years. Shorter if this is on different teams and technologies. This means a college grad will be in 30s. Someone who worked off jobs while in college might get there faster a bit. A passionate experimenter who does a lot of open source dev would be there before you blink but will be hard pressed to prove it. Pity companies do not wish to hire people in high school with actual will to do the thing and learn. Vocational education so to speak. They probably (and rightly) expect a pause for college or other higher education.
    - 80386 9y ago
      What do tech people do after they hit 35?
    - zimpenfish 9y ago
      Well, I'm considerably past 35 and still being hired as a tech developer. Mostly at high $$ to come and fix the problems that young 'uns have created in their wide-eyed naive blithering and fawning over fancy new doodads.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
bcheung 9y ago
I've said the same thing myself about bringing back the apprenticeship system. That system required a contract of typically 7 years though and that is why masters would take on apprentices. 7 years is a long time but if there is a way to have your investment not just walk out the door after you spent a bunch of resources getting them up to speed that would make it much more feasible. Perhaps a forgivable loan upon completion of the apprenticeship?
- nradov 9y ago
  Employers can already offer forgivable loans to pay for employee training. One of my former employers handled tuition reimbursement for my Master's degree that way. After I graduated and stayed two more years they wrote off the debt. (I did have to pay income tax on the forgiven debt though.)
- walshemj 9y ago
  I think 7 was the contractual term for the traditional "craft" apprenticeship blacksmiths starting at 14 - latterly 4 years starting at 15/16 For what's termed higher apprenticeships you either did a craft one first or joined later on at 18 or so. The problem will come is that higher apprentices learn the fundamental building blocks and tech employers want people rote trained in " latest shiny tech" Btw traditional apprentices where not guaranteed a job at the end, it was possible to sack an apprentice but you'd sack them on grounds on breach of contract. As they(or their parents) signed a biding contract - you could not make the redundant though. Modern apprenticeships are normally direct employees now though - not sure about Germany though.
- sotojuan 9y ago
  A big chunk of the tech industry doesn't think in 7+ years long terms. They think in "next seed round" terms. Therefore, they want senior devs now so they build whatever they need to hopefully hit the user count for the next seed round. If your company thinks short term (e.g. next 2 years) like most tech startups do, hiring juniors and training is out of the question.
itg 9y ago
That's sort of what internships are for, but those often restricted to people studying in college, and I've even seen internship applications ask for experience in X,Y, and Z technology.
- awat 9y ago
  Not to mention there is a whole class signalling aspect to interships. I remember a getting an internship in college with a large defense contractor and them not seeming to understand I needed to know what the exact pay was. As much as I would have liked to play that “cool” I still needed to pay my own rent.
paulie_a 9y ago
That is amazingly short sighted by an employer. They don't deserve to have an employee they can train. A company is losing the opportunity to train employees. And if they don't put the effort in early.. They are probably losing their top talent and don't even realize it.
- crimsonalucard 9y ago
  Right, it's a thinking ahead investment scenario with risk. But if you look at it from a transactional point of view it makes no sense: I pay you to educate you while you provide me with nothing.
  - paulie_a 9y ago
    If an employer is thinking with that mentality, why would I ever want to work for them?
    - Density 9y ago
      Because you need to eat.
    - crimsonalucard 9y ago
      A fair transaction rather than a risky investment? Let me ask you something. Would you work for an employer that will only maybe pay you after one year? Because that's essentially the payoff an employer gets when they decide to take on an entry level hire. Think about it this way. Why would any employer hire you if you have that mentality?

lazypenguin 9y ago

That's not the issue, the issue is the terminology. If you don't want to pay to train someone then don't label it an "entry-level" position. The truth is that many want "mid-level/senior-level" employees (3+ year experience requirements) at "entry-level" salaries.

PeterisP 9y ago
Look at it from the perspective of a "career in this organization", not "career of this person". It is an entry level job - it's the lowest tier in their ranking, it's the starting place, it's literally the level where new people enter the organization; it's the lowest paid and least respected position they have, filled with the least experienced and least tenured people in the whole company. It's just that they (want to) start with people who have worked (somewhere else) for a few years already; but that does not and can not make it a mid-tier job, that would require them to have other, even lower jobs. Furthermore, saying that 3 years might be a senior level position is stretching definitions - assuming an average lifetime career of 30 years, someone with 3 years experience has less "seniority" than 90% of the workforce.
- RbrtM 9y ago
  These days your tech career ends at 35, so an average lifetime career lasts 10-12 years.
  - paulie_a 9y ago
    That is laughable. While age doesn't really matter, true senior talent doesn't even begin until someone has worked for at least a decade, which puts most people in their early to mid 30s
    - AstralStorm 9y ago
      Depends on when one has started but yes, the expected age in my experience is around 7 years. Shorter if this is on different teams and technologies. This means a college grad will be in 30s. Someone who worked off jobs while in college might get there faster a bit. A passionate experimenter who does a lot of open source dev would be there before you blink but will be hard pressed to prove it. Pity companies do not wish to hire people in high school with actual will to do the thing and learn. Vocational education so to speak. They probably (and rightly) expect a pause for college or other higher education.
  - 80386 9y ago
    What do tech people do after they hit 35?
  - zimpenfish 9y ago
    Well, I'm considerably past 35 and still being hired as a tech developer. Mostly at high $$ to come and fix the problems that young 'uns have created in their wide-eyed naive blithering and fawning over fancy new doodads.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

bcheung 9y ago

I've said the same thing myself about bringing back the apprenticeship system. That system required a contract of typically 7 years though and that is why masters would take on apprentices. 7 years is a long time but if there is a way to have your investment not just walk out the door after you spent a bunch of resources getting them up to speed that would make it much more feasible. Perhaps a forgivable loan upon completion of the apprenticeship?

nradov 9y ago
Employers can already offer forgivable loans to pay for employee training. One of my former employers handled tuition reimbursement for my Master's degree that way. After I graduated and stayed two more years they wrote off the debt. (I did have to pay income tax on the forgiven debt though.)
walshemj 9y ago
I think 7 was the contractual term for the traditional "craft" apprenticeship blacksmiths starting at 14 - latterly 4 years starting at 15/16 For what's termed higher apprenticeships you either did a craft one first or joined later on at 18 or so. The problem will come is that higher apprentices learn the fundamental building blocks and tech employers want people rote trained in " latest shiny tech" Btw traditional apprentices where not guaranteed a job at the end, it was possible to sack an apprentice but you'd sack them on grounds on breach of contract. As they(or their parents) signed a biding contract - you could not make the redundant though. Modern apprenticeships are normally direct employees now though - not sure about Germany though.
sotojuan 9y ago
A big chunk of the tech industry doesn't think in 7+ years long terms. They think in "next seed round" terms. Therefore, they want senior devs now so they build whatever they need to hopefully hit the user count for the next seed round. If your company thinks short term (e.g. next 2 years) like most tech startups do, hiring juniors and training is out of the question.

itg 9y ago

That's sort of what internships are for, but those often restricted to people studying in college, and I've even seen internship applications ask for experience in X,Y, and Z technology.

awat 9y ago
Not to mention there is a whole class signalling aspect to interships. I remember a getting an internship in college with a large defense contractor and them not seeming to understand I needed to know what the exact pay was. As much as I would have liked to play that “cool” I still needed to pay my own rent.

paulie_a 9y ago

That is amazingly short sighted by an employer. They don't deserve to have an employee they can train. A company is losing the opportunity to train employees. And if they don't put the effort in early.. They are probably losing their top talent and don't even realize it.

crimsonalucard 9y ago
Right, it's a thinking ahead investment scenario with risk. But if you look at it from a transactional point of view it makes no sense: I pay you to educate you while you provide me with nothing.
- paulie_a 9y ago
  If an employer is thinking with that mentality, why would I ever want to work for them?
  - Density 9y ago
    Because you need to eat.
  - crimsonalucard 9y ago
    A fair transaction rather than a risky investment? Let me ask you something. Would you work for an employer that will only maybe pay you after one year? Because that's essentially the payoff an employer gets when they decide to take on an entry level hire. Think about it this way. Why would any employer hire you if you have that mentality?