The key issue is probably time investment for companies. Using years of experience is the easiest way to judge 'ability', and it can be judged by someone non-te

The key issue is probably time investment for companies. Using years of experience is the easiest way to judge 'ability', and it can be judged by someone non-technical that can ask simple questions about experience - so every applicant is not wasting the time of a tech team member. Pay a fresh grad 30K to review resumes and waste their time instead of your 120K tech lead. A trend these days is using interests as a predictor of talent. Most of my clients (recruiter of engineers) could see two identical levels of professional experience, but if one of those candidates is writing Haskell at night that is the one getting the interview. The intellectual curiosity and interest in complex subjects seems to be an indicator of ability and/or talent. This could be something easy to teach HR and recruiters, and I always ask candidates about tech hobbies or "What do you run at home?" to get some insight. Most below average engineers are probably not assumed to be researching complex concepts in their spare time. To think that companies or individuals will not continue to use experience numbers in evaluating talent is overly-optimistic, but I think judging based on interests is becoming a useful means.