> Basically, companies don't want to train and would rather have instant gratification of hiring seniors. It’s not that simple. Seniors are less risky to hire

> Basically, companies don't want to train and would rather have instant gratification of hiring seniors. It’s not that simple. Seniors are less risky to hire, in general. You can collect references, gauge their past performance, and interview them about real-world topics they’ve worked on. It’s not perfect, but it’s a good indicator of how they’ll perform. Juniors are a blank slate and a roll of the dice. Some of them turn out to be fantastic. Some of them turn out to be unfit for the working world or not yet mature enough for the responsibilities of a job. You have to hire many of them, assign other people to train them, then have the stomach to thin out the underperforming juniors so you can focus your resources on the ones who deserve the attention. It takes a lot of time and energy to train and filter juniors, and companies that are already short-staffed are actually the last ones to have extra hands to give juniors the attention they need. Trendy companies and fast-growing startups always sound fun to work for, but they’re often the last companies equipped to take on junior employees and give them what they need. This isn’t what most juniors want to hear, but it’s often easier for juniors to start at boring, slower moving big companies that they can find locally. The kinds of companies that have extra hands to train people and give them room to prove themselves before they’re expected to be senior-level productive. Don’t try to force your way into hypergrowth startups that need results now unless you already have a track record of delivering those results that you can show them. Have to start somewhere.