-2

I came across this question: How can I overcome "years of experience" requirements when applying to positions?

Last week one fat MNC (a big Multinational Company like amazon, accenture, caterpillar, capegemini, Deloitte, ebay, etc.) interviewed me. 3-10 was the expected experience. I had 33 months exp. Out of so many (older) candidates, very few candidates including me successfully impressed the technical personnel.

Few days later a HR person called my phone and offered me a shocking package. It was just a 5% hike from my current salary.

This is what she said:

We are happy with your performance during the interview. However your experience falls under 2-3 years category. Hence, we can NOT offer you more than XXX salary (which is about a 5% hike).

I was totally silenced by their response. Therefore I had to reject the offer.
FYI In my country 30-40% hike is very normal

I had been job hunting for 2 months and received a couple of decent offers from smaller companies. But this organization was one of my dream organizations, but I was shocked and embarrassed by their response.

My current company is also a fat MNC and you can't find many people whose skills surpass the experience.

So the questions are

Why don't employers want to hire skilled, yet young employees?
Why employers prefer "experienced old people" over "talented young"?

closed as primarily opinion-based by Jim G., Joe Strazzere, gnat, Michael Grubey, jcmeloni Apr 23 '14 at 12:09

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

6

Firstly there's a very big difference between skilled and experienced. You may be the most talented young developer in Asia but with only three years of experience you will have been exposed to less technologies, high stress situations and clients than someone who's been writing code for ten years.

In current times I've seen more and more employers taking the safe bet, the person who's been doing the job for a lot longer and has a proven track record. Clearly this is based on my own local experience.

To me it sounds like your disappointment stems from the lack of a raise. If you're genuinely unhappy with the offer then you need to negotiate. Someone with a little more local knowledge will be far better suited to guiding your expectations there.

  • 8
    Years of experience is too arbitrary and leads to a false sense of security that someone has actually experienced multiple technologies, stress and clients. I was at a small company that released a bad upgrade and experienced more stress in 1 month than I have in the 10 years after that combined. – user8365 Apr 23 '14 at 11:23
  • 1
    thanks @JeffO +1000 you stole my words. I hope my question made some sense to few guys. – meow Apr 23 '14 at 11:27
  • @JeffO you're absolutely right. I was attempting to explain that skills and experience are both measures of a potential employee. Years of service does not guarantee skills in particular areas but very broadly speaking working in the industry for a longer amount of time has seen and done more. – Liath Apr 23 '14 at 11:34
6

Are we really so shocked that people doing the hiring at many companies don't know what they're doing? They don't know how to identify a good programmer (in this example), so they'll hire the person that someone else was dumb enough to give a job for a few years. Most companies never last more than 5 years probably because they repeat the same mistakes.

Expected Experience They explicitly stated 3-10 years, but offered someone with less. Don't take job postings literally. I don't know why they play this game, but they always "wiggle" on requirements. Personally, I think that is a good thing, but why post these numbers if you're not going to stick to them? It's a game. They think it will weed-out all the people who will take a random shot at a high-paying job even though they know nothing about it.

Time Factors I've seen companies that base the pay-scale on number of years at that company. Other experience was not given much weight. In their mind it's just easier to do this and avoid negotiations and conflicts. Why wait a year to determine raises? What's so magical about 365 days?

Skill Sets Same as expected experience. They shot-gun blast 25 different technologies and end up hiring someone who has a little over half of them. What does "understand" HTML really mean? Do I get to Google it? Am I expected to write it fluently? I've had interviews where answering "yes" was acceptable. They probably had the last programmer make this list before she left and all these skills were used for clients/projects that you'll never work on, but HR doesn't know that.

Look for the company and most importantly team and leader that fits your style. Don't take the hurdles you have to jump over too seriously. Many companies mean well even if they don't really understand how to manage programmers. The princess has to kiss a lot of frogs sometimes to find a prince.

  • 1
    Remember, people doing the hiring get credit for filling the position with a qualified candidate, can get in serious trouble if they hire the wrong one and there are no consequences for skipping a good one. – user8365 Apr 23 '14 at 11:41
  • 2
    I'd also recommend that smaller firms tend to be more personable and try not to limit candidates because they know good ones are hard to find, so they make the additional effort. And in defense of larger companies, smaller ones tend not to get bombarded with job requests. – user8365 Apr 23 '14 at 12:59

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.