Serious question. Is ageism a huge deal? I am not arguing it does not exist but I think about what I have seen in the interviews I have done. We all have biases and I will never be completely unbiased but I try to at least be aware. I sometimes feel that ageism is actually the filter. I notice people I have worked with they at some point stop caring and they kind of give up. They don't stay relevant with whats happening in the industry.
Some of the issues I have seen that can be construed as ageism I will list.
* Candidates lack of awareness. They have a 2-5 page resume. I see the resume and I wonder how unaware they are. Yes, resumes do not matter but when I get 3 pages filled with large paragraphs I worry the candidate lacks awareness. So far its been a good indicator.
* Candidates who belittle me during the interview process.
* Candidates who have not kept up with technology. No I don't expect you to know the latest framework but understanding patterns that have emerged in the past 5 years seem relevant. I dislike the latest and greatest technology but its important to understand the general trends.
* Candidates that generally who have had zero prep for the interview process expecting the resume/experience to tell all. Yes, algorithms are not the best determining factor but it's at least a minor indicator. When we work through a problem does the other person just give up?
Let me state again that I believe it exists but I sometimes have a hard time separating true ageism and just a clear distinction between people who have stayed relevant and not relevant.
With respect I think that those characteristics could equally apply to anyone - old, young or somewhere in the middle. I wouldn't say any of those are specific to people approaching their retirement age.
For example I interviewed someone in their early 20s a little while ago who knew Angular 1 inside-out and to the absolute finest detail, but that is obsolete now that we're on Angular 6/React etc - they had never used modern Angular, Typescript or React... just good old Angular1 + JS. Did they stay relevant? nope. Are they old? nope. The benefit of the doubt for the early-20s person could be to just assume they don't know Angular6+TS because they were working on legacy code and didn't get the chance, but should I treat the early-20s person any different from a 60s person all other things being equal? nope. I am sure they could both pick up the new skills just as easily.
I know a lot of retired people socially (parents/friends of friends, neighbors etc - alas not that many from work) who are still 100% as sharp as a tack - quick-witted, intelligent, energetic etc. It would be unfair to use their age as a filter based on assumptions of how they would perform in an interview based on how other entirely different individuals have behaved in previous interviews.
Obsolete? Is this sarcasm? Angular 1 vs 6? Like, how can the burden of getting up to speed in a later version of the same framework even compare to that of getting your head into all legacy company code and how the coffe machine at the office is refilled?
"Oh, .Net 3.5 you say? We do 4.0 here. We call you back."
Coding has barely changed since the 60s. The screens are bigger.
It's the programs that have evolved not the programmers really.
My point I was trying to make was that not staying relevant in tech is not unique to "old" people.
The early 20s person who went deep with angular 1 may not have "kept relevant", but that is no reason to outright reject them (or someone 30-40 years their senior) on its own. I am sure they (and "old" people) would easily be able to get up to speed.
As you said, programming has largely remained unchanged at a fundamental level.
100%. I am not suggesting these characteristics are only found in a specific age group. I am suggesting that I find this to be true the older someone is. I still would like to believe that the majority of the issues are not true ageism.
I was refuting the statement about older people potentially not "keeping relevant" in tech. My example was an early 20s person who was also not relevant in tech, despite not being "old".
Not keeping relevant is not a problem related to age was the point I was trying to make, but actually applies to all ages equally.
Some of the issues I have seen that can be construed as ageism I will list.
* Candidates lack of awareness. They have a 2-5 page resume. I see the resume and I wonder how unaware they are. Yes, resumes do not matter but when I get 3 pages filled with large paragraphs I worry the candidate lacks awareness. So far its been a good indicator. * Candidates who belittle me during the interview process. * Candidates who have not kept up with technology. No I don't expect you to know the latest framework but understanding patterns that have emerged in the past 5 years seem relevant. I dislike the latest and greatest technology but its important to understand the general trends. * Candidates that generally who have had zero prep for the interview process expecting the resume/experience to tell all. Yes, algorithms are not the best determining factor but it's at least a minor indicator. When we work through a problem does the other person just give up?
Let me state again that I believe it exists but I sometimes have a hard time separating true ageism and just a clear distinction between people who have stayed relevant and not relevant.