5 ms·

One of the problems most older employees face (and i'm 36, which in silicon valley, is no spring chicken) interviewing is that nobody wants to take a chance on

One of the problems most older employees face (and i'm 36, which in silicon valley, is no spring chicken) interviewing is that nobody wants to take a chance on them. Let's say you work for a company that has "up or out" until a certain level (a lot do). Let's say they do that for reasonable reasons (IE i don't want to argue about whether this is a reasonable policy, it's not the point here). Let's say you have a position to fill, and your candidates are a 30 year old woman with 1 year of experience and a 99 year old woman with 45 years experience (the fact that you were able to get two female candidates should make it clear this is a fake story in silicon valley) You interview them both. 30 year old does okay. The 99 year old does okay. Neither one of them would really meet the bar for any level above "up and out", and so if they don't grow, they're going to get fired. Let's say they have about 2 years. Here's your problem: The 30 year old is just starting out. So while they aren't at the "up and out level" yet, there is some hope they may be in a year or two, and can demonstrate continuous growth until then. The 99 year old has been at this for 45 years. If they haven't become that good in 45 years, it's pretty close to certain they never will. Thus, the 30 year old gets hired over the 99 year old, but not because the 99 year old is 99, but because he hasn't grown to be good enough in 45 years. Now you realize it's not about age, but often about years of experience vs what you've done with them, and that a guy with 1 year of experience has a lot more uncertainty and possible positive than a guy with 45 years experience. There is basically no uncertainty about where that guy will top out.

tptacek 12y ago
Is it legitimate to assume that someone with 45 experience who is not yet "principal" level is incapable of making "principal"? Aren't there lots and lots of explanations for them not being at that level yet?
- tptacek 12y ago
  I mean, that's a banal observation, and maybe this is too, but: the fact that there are persuasive stories we can tell ourselves about why we're better off not hiring older people (or [insert minority here]) seems like one of the big reasons why we make it unlawful to discriminate against them.
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    Actually, if you want to get into that side of it, one of the main reasons it's unlawful to discriminate against them is because they are more expensive to companies (health, pensions, 401k, etc). Because these are often the things that drive expenses at company, so they like to terminate them when they become too old. The ever-growing aging workforce being terminated unilaterally is what caused most of these acts.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      I have no snappy answer to either of those comments. Thanks for giving me more to think about.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  "Is it legitimate to assume that someone with 45 experience who is not yet "principal" level is incapable of making "principal"?" IMHO, without any other knowledge about the person, it's reasonable to calculate it happening with a lower probability than someone else. "Aren't there lots and lots of explanations for them not being at that level yet?" As my father used to say: "At some point, potential doesn't matter, it matters what you do with it". Why something happened is in some sense, irrelevant. They aren't at a level of competence you can hire them now. In practice, i don't give a rats ass about their age. I rate a 99 year old with 1 year experience the same way I rate a 30 year old with 1 year experience. But I definitely expect anybody with 20 years experience, be they 10, 20, 30, 100, 1000, or whatever, to be comparable to the other people with 20 years of experience. If they aren't, i can't hire them at that level. So then i have to decide if i want to hire them at a lower level, which means i have to compare them against lower levels, which involves calculating predicted future competence, often against the people with less years of experience, to see if i believe which will be a beter candidate. At that point, yes, what you've actually done matters, not why you did it. I can't know why you did it, i can only know what has actually happened. Honestly, i'd really like to understand why one would think the risk calculation of "conditional probability of guy who has been doing something for 45 years suddenly changing and becoming much better at it in 2 years" is somehow the same as "conditional probability of a guy who has been doing something for 1 year becoming much better at in 2 years". Because i just don't see it, and am truly struggling to understand why one would think these probabilities are equal, outside of "it seems politically incorrect to say they aren't" and we wish they weren't (As I said, I'm getting older too, so i wish they weren't myself :P) (Note experience means " in the job i want to hire him to do". So a 99 year old with 45 years experience as a math teacher is considered to have 0 years of experience as a software engineer, and i'd compare him against people with 0 years experience. So the guy with 45 years experience has been doing exactly the job i want to hire him to do for 45 years)
sklivvz1971 12y ago
I'm sorry to say you are making so many unwarranted assumptions and are displaying a huge bias. People don't know things because they've never encountered them. People don't stop learning as they age, and the things to learn do not run out. What people have achieved or not in their careers is not your business, when you hire. You hire based on competence. Assuming that people don't grow at 99 because they've been at it for 45 years is stupid and ageist. In fact, it's perfectly equivalent to say "I don't hire women in their 30s because they'll want to have children".
- DannyBee 12y ago
  "I'm sorry to say you are making so many unwarranted assumptions and are displaying a huge bias." You seem really upset, and your argument seems almost entirely emotional. "People don't know things because they've never encountered them." I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Could you explain how this applies to your argument? If, after 45 years, you don't have a basic grasp of CS , and you were doing a CS job for 45 years, it doesn't seem likely to me you will gain one soon. If you were a math professor for the past 10 years, yeah, i can understand that. "People don't stop learning as they age, " Whether this is true or not, after 45 years, they haven't learned any better than the guy with 1 year of experience. "What people have achieved or not in their careers is not your business, when you hire." ???? I made an argument based on current skill level and likely future skill level. "You hire based on competence." Sorry, For lower levels, people hire based on both current competence, and likely future competence. Otherwise, nobody would get hired at lower levels. Lawyers out of law school are incompetent. Firms hire them based on what their future rate of competence is likely to be. Same with every software engineer out of college. Nobody hires for the long term based on straight current competence. It would make no sense (short term hiring, it often does). Even if you were right, then they wouldn't get hired anyway, because they weren't at the level one would expect after being at it for so many years. That's what you seem to miss. It's your job to push yourself and grow. You can't seriously expect that if you haven't grown in 45 years, someone should take a chance on you expecting that in the next two, you are going to buck all that and grow. "Assuming that people don't grow at 99 because they've been at it for 45 years is stupid and ageist." You haven't explained why. your argument above is 100% unpersuasive. I'm not even assuming. I'm pointing out that they haven't grown. Whether they can or not is actually even somewhat besides the point. They haven't. So either they aren't pushing themselves, or they can't. At some point, it doesn't matter. I don't want people that don't do either. if you suddenly decide, after 45 years of stagnation, you want to grow in your career, you can't expect everyone else to believe it is going to happen. Let's say it was neither, and it was because they had a sick child for 45 years they needed to care for. I still can't hire them at a level the other people with 45 years of experience have. I can't know this, either. I can only make risk calculations based on the data i have. Your argument is "we shouldn't be allowed to make calculations about people". Which would make hiring essentially random. If i can't hire them at the level they belong, i have to compare them against lower levels i could hire them at based on their current and future predicted competence. When you do this calculation, it does not come out in favor of the guy with 45 years experience. "In fact, it's perfectly equivalent to say "I don't hire women in their 30s because they'll want to have children". " This is a 100% non-responsive, emotional swipe for no reason. it's completely and utterly false in every way, and honestly, it makes me simply not want to have a discussion with you. So i'm out on this part of the thread.

tptacek 12y ago

Is it legitimate to assume that someone with 45 experience who is not yet "principal" level is incapable of making "principal"? Aren't there lots and lots of explanations for them not being at that level yet?

tptacek 12y ago
I mean, that's a banal observation, and maybe this is too, but: the fact that there are persuasive stories we can tell ourselves about why we're better off not hiring older people (or [insert minority here]) seems like one of the big reasons why we make it unlawful to discriminate against them.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  Actually, if you want to get into that side of it, one of the main reasons it's unlawful to discriminate against them is because they are more expensive to companies (health, pensions, 401k, etc). Because these are often the things that drive expenses at company, so they like to terminate them when they become too old. The ever-growing aging workforce being terminated unilaterally is what caused most of these acts.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    I have no snappy answer to either of those comments. Thanks for giving me more to think about.
DannyBee 12y ago
"Is it legitimate to assume that someone with 45 experience who is not yet "principal" level is incapable of making "principal"?" IMHO, without any other knowledge about the person, it's reasonable to calculate it happening with a lower probability than someone else. "Aren't there lots and lots of explanations for them not being at that level yet?" As my father used to say: "At some point, potential doesn't matter, it matters what you do with it". Why something happened is in some sense, irrelevant. They aren't at a level of competence you can hire them now. In practice, i don't give a rats ass about their age. I rate a 99 year old with 1 year experience the same way I rate a 30 year old with 1 year experience. But I definitely expect anybody with 20 years experience, be they 10, 20, 30, 100, 1000, or whatever, to be comparable to the other people with 20 years of experience. If they aren't, i can't hire them at that level. So then i have to decide if i want to hire them at a lower level, which means i have to compare them against lower levels, which involves calculating predicted future competence, often against the people with less years of experience, to see if i believe which will be a beter candidate. At that point, yes, what you've actually done matters, not why you did it. I can't know why you did it, i can only know what has actually happened. Honestly, i'd really like to understand why one would think the risk calculation of "conditional probability of guy who has been doing something for 45 years suddenly changing and becoming much better at it in 2 years" is somehow the same as "conditional probability of a guy who has been doing something for 1 year becoming much better at in 2 years". Because i just don't see it, and am truly struggling to understand why one would think these probabilities are equal, outside of "it seems politically incorrect to say they aren't" and we wish they weren't (As I said, I'm getting older too, so i wish they weren't myself :P) (Note experience means " in the job i want to hire him to do". So a 99 year old with 45 years experience as a math teacher is considered to have 0 years of experience as a software engineer, and i'd compare him against people with 0 years experience. So the guy with 45 years experience has been doing exactly the job i want to hire him to do for 45 years)

sklivvz1971 12y ago

I'm sorry to say you are making so many unwarranted assumptions and are displaying a huge bias. People don't know things because they've never encountered them. People don't stop learning as they age, and the things to learn do not run out. What people have achieved or not in their careers is not your business, when you hire. You hire based on competence. Assuming that people don't grow at 99 because they've been at it for 45 years is stupid and ageist. In fact, it's perfectly equivalent to say "I don't hire women in their 30s because they'll want to have children".

DannyBee 12y ago
"I'm sorry to say you are making so many unwarranted assumptions and are displaying a huge bias." You seem really upset, and your argument seems almost entirely emotional. "People don't know things because they've never encountered them." I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Could you explain how this applies to your argument? If, after 45 years, you don't have a basic grasp of CS , and you were doing a CS job for 45 years, it doesn't seem likely to me you will gain one soon. If you were a math professor for the past 10 years, yeah, i can understand that. "People don't stop learning as they age, " Whether this is true or not, after 45 years, they haven't learned any better than the guy with 1 year of experience. "What people have achieved or not in their careers is not your business, when you hire." ???? I made an argument based on current skill level and likely future skill level. "You hire based on competence." Sorry, For lower levels, people hire based on both current competence, and likely future competence. Otherwise, nobody would get hired at lower levels. Lawyers out of law school are incompetent. Firms hire them based on what their future rate of competence is likely to be. Same with every software engineer out of college. Nobody hires for the long term based on straight current competence. It would make no sense (short term hiring, it often does). Even if you were right, then they wouldn't get hired anyway, because they weren't at the level one would expect after being at it for so many years. That's what you seem to miss. It's your job to push yourself and grow. You can't seriously expect that if you haven't grown in 45 years, someone should take a chance on you expecting that in the next two, you are going to buck all that and grow. "Assuming that people don't grow at 99 because they've been at it for 45 years is stupid and ageist." You haven't explained why. your argument above is 100% unpersuasive. I'm not even assuming. I'm pointing out that they haven't grown. Whether they can or not is actually even somewhat besides the point. They haven't. So either they aren't pushing themselves, or they can't. At some point, it doesn't matter. I don't want people that don't do either. if you suddenly decide, after 45 years of stagnation, you want to grow in your career, you can't expect everyone else to believe it is going to happen. Let's say it was neither, and it was because they had a sick child for 45 years they needed to care for. I still can't hire them at a level the other people with 45 years of experience have. I can't know this, either. I can only make risk calculations based on the data i have. Your argument is "we shouldn't be allowed to make calculations about people". Which would make hiring essentially random. If i can't hire them at the level they belong, i have to compare them against lower levels i could hire them at based on their current and future predicted competence. When you do this calculation, it does not come out in favor of the guy with 45 years experience. "In fact, it's perfectly equivalent to say "I don't hire women in their 30s because they'll want to have children". " This is a 100% non-responsive, emotional swipe for no reason. it's completely and utterly false in every way, and honestly, it makes me simply not want to have a discussion with you. So i'm out on this part of the thread.