Silicon Valley's dirty secret - age bias(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Silicon Valley's dirty secret - age bias
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/us-valley-ageism-idUSBRE8AQ0JK20121127
56 comments
Is this essentially a Web 2.0/Bay Area issue? I recently went to a Java User Group meeting on the east coast where the presenter and about 60% of the audience....had grey hair.
I think I may have been the 2nd or 3rd youngest person at the meeting and I'm 30....
I'm the 2nd youngest person at my current place of employment in the finance domain. I'm hoping that means by 40 yrs old there will be lot's of work and I can contract for $150/hr or whatever by then as a lot of the brick and mortars are heavily entrenched in the JEE stack and if this board is any indication there will be a dearth of JEE talent . Even in the Java space I can’t say I’ve seen too many 80yr old developers. But at least your career is not dead at 40.
I’ve developed in Python professionally in the past and am teaching myself RoR now for both personal use and I have to admit I like writing in those languages more. But after reading articles like this and going out to San Francisco seeing the environment first hand I have to be honest when saying that I would be a little tentative jumping out there feet first.
I would expect Java User Groups to skew much older than the average HN'er or start-up employee, or probably programmers in general.
Replace "Java" with "enterprise" and you're correct. As for COBOL, you're looking at some real geezers pulling in huge consulting fees. 20 years from now when RoR is passe, expect the same for that.
It's a problem in the D.C. Metro area as well.
My experience is interesting in that I'm blessed with genes that make me look decades younger than I am. And dress pretty much the way I did in my 20s, so everyone who initially looks at me thinks I'm somewhere in there.
After I hit 35 or so I increasingly found it difficult to find work ... until I scrubbed my resume of all evidence of exactly how old I was and then tried to be careful in interviews. I did this in the middle of one job search and the difference was like night and day.
And for a specific example, once I screwed up and mentioned working on PDP-11s, at which point my technical interviewer exclaimed "Just how old are you?!?!?!!!" Which is of course illegal, but in all fairness he'd just realized his model of me was seriously off. I said "Older than I look" and got the job, but it didn't end well....
My experience is interesting in that I'm blessed with genes that make me look decades younger than I am. And dress pretty much the way I did in my 20s, so everyone who initially looks at me thinks I'm somewhere in there.
After I hit 35 or so I increasingly found it difficult to find work ... until I scrubbed my resume of all evidence of exactly how old I was and then tried to be careful in interviews. I did this in the middle of one job search and the difference was like night and day.
And for a specific example, once I screwed up and mentioned working on PDP-11s, at which point my technical interviewer exclaimed "Just how old are you?!?!?!!!" Which is of course illegal, but in all fairness he'd just realized his model of me was seriously off. I said "Older than I look" and got the job, but it didn't end well....
I think that's also a "Java" deal. You could go to a COBOL meetup and see the same thing, that doesn't make it the norm.
Because the norm is working at a startup in SV?
would love to hear pg weigh in on this...
Well, pg didn't found the company that made him a millionaire until he was thirty years old...
Let me ragechannel pg for a minute: People are not created equal. Some are much smarter and much more capable than others. Once you reach a certain age, if you haven't "made it," you aren't one of the smarter and much more capable people. Being younger, you both don't know what you don't know and you haven't become set in unchangeable broken ways yet. Google likes to hire young so they can brainwash you into being "googly." Same with other companies. Once your brain thinks you need six TPS reports every day, it's not worth fixing you when we can hire younger, unbroken people. VCs love 'em young. Sequoia bluntly states they prefer to fund two guys working from a dorm room.
These days,"young people" are part of the technology. It's not something they learn as abstract concepts. They are it and it is them. You wouldn't expect a 50 year old Elbonian mud farmer to go to school and learn to be a world class electric car designer. But, you would expect a 50 year old world class electric car designer to still be hot shit.
Or, in song lyrics: maybe I should learn to shut my mouth -- I am over 25 and I can't make a name for myself; some nights I break down and cry.
The brilliance of our current situation is what "they" think of you is more and more irrelevant. Just make something people want. People have unlimited wants after all.
These days,"young people" are part of the technology. It's not something they learn as abstract concepts. They are it and it is them. You wouldn't expect a 50 year old Elbonian mud farmer to go to school and learn to be a world class electric car designer. But, you would expect a 50 year old world class electric car designer to still be hot shit.
Or, in song lyrics: maybe I should learn to shut my mouth -- I am over 25 and I can't make a name for myself; some nights I break down and cry.
The brilliance of our current situation is what "they" think of you is more and more irrelevant. Just make something people want. People have unlimited wants after all.
Google likes to hire young so they can brainwash you into being "googly." Same with other companies. Once your brain thinks you need six TPS reports every day, it's not worth fixing you when we can hire younger, unbroken people. VCs love 'em young. Sequoia bluntly states they prefer to fund two guys working from a dorm room.
The flip side of this analysis would be: YC and Sequoia prefer to fund kids because kids are easier to manipulate. Kids don't know how to read a contract or a term sheet. Kids don't know how to protect their own interests in their business when accepting funding. Kids don't know how to play hardball in negotiations.
Kids, in other words, are very easy to use as disposable resources.
(Indeed, with appropriate conditioning you can even convince them to believe that becoming a disposable resource is a sign of their Epic Founderhood.)
Someone who's seen peers get screwed over in previous gigs, or who's been screwed over themselves, is going to have learned a few things about how not to get screwed over the next time. So it's more profitable to deal with people who haven't learned those lessons yet. And once they have learned those lessons, you throw them overboard and replace them with the next batch of dewey-eyed innocents.
The flip side of this analysis would be: YC and Sequoia prefer to fund kids because kids are easier to manipulate. Kids don't know how to read a contract or a term sheet. Kids don't know how to protect their own interests in their business when accepting funding. Kids don't know how to play hardball in negotiations.
Kids, in other words, are very easy to use as disposable resources.
(Indeed, with appropriate conditioning you can even convince them to believe that becoming a disposable resource is a sign of their Epic Founderhood.)
Someone who's seen peers get screwed over in previous gigs, or who's been screwed over themselves, is going to have learned a few things about how not to get screwed over the next time. So it's more profitable to deal with people who haven't learned those lessons yet. And once they have learned those lessons, you throw them overboard and replace them with the next batch of dewey-eyed innocents.
While that might be true (that young people are more easily manipulated) it doesn't make much sense as a primary reason for why VC's like young people.
Ultimately, making a big successful company is really hard and VC's would want to bet on people who have the best chance of doing that - not the ones they can easily screw with.
Note: I don't buy the idea that only young people make good entrepreneurs. There's tons of evidence that older entrepreneurs can be very successful. It's probably true though that young people in general are more likely to massively revolutionize something entrenched, even if their overall success rate is the same or lower than older people.
Einstein, for example, was 26 when he published 4 papers that would change the field of physics forever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers
Ultimately, making a big successful company is really hard and VC's would want to bet on people who have the best chance of doing that - not the ones they can easily screw with.
Note: I don't buy the idea that only young people make good entrepreneurs. There's tons of evidence that older entrepreneurs can be very successful. It's probably true though that young people in general are more likely to massively revolutionize something entrenched, even if their overall success rate is the same or lower than older people.
Einstein, for example, was 26 when he published 4 papers that would change the field of physics forever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers
I was shocked that none of the top-voted comments mention this aspect of the matter. The attitude of founders is one thing, and possibly worrisome, but the attitude of funders is predictable: they'd like to maximize some index that combines "likely to start a company that goes huge" and "likely to be much better at starting that company than at negotiating how much of a stake we'll get in it." There is an obvious economic incentive to be balancing those, not just looking at the first. With respect to pg, VCs clearly vary in how they construct that index - but a cold look at the matter through the lens of economics should tell anyone that it certainly is an index, not just Most Likely To Succeed.
> Once you reach a certain age, if you haven't "made it," you aren't one of the smarter and much more capable people.
This is premised on the assumption that everyone was trying to "make it" at 22. Outside the little SV social network bubble, founders are generally older with a deep well of experience in a problem domain. I worked at two companies run by their original founders. The founders at both companies were in their late 30's or 40's when they started the companies. They had PhD's, years of experience in the field, numerous papers to their name, and extensive professional networks. They weren't trying to "make it" at 22--they were working in the industry building up a solid foundation for starting a business.
This is premised on the assumption that everyone was trying to "make it" at 22. Outside the little SV social network bubble, founders are generally older with a deep well of experience in a problem domain. I worked at two companies run by their original founders. The founders at both companies were in their late 30's or 40's when they started the companies. They had PhD's, years of experience in the field, numerous papers to their name, and extensive professional networks. They weren't trying to "make it" at 22--they were working in the industry building up a solid foundation for starting a business.
Thank you for stating this more eloquently than I could. I don't think it can be emphasized enough that not everyone is obsessed with playing "the game".
So I'm not a fan of ageism and I wouldn't ascribe it to pg without evidence...
But given the "startup = growth" essay, where he says that only 1 company per cycle makes any difference to YC's returns, I can see the logic behind ageism.
Young people (I'm not one of them anymore) just have more unpredictable outcomes. They are the Black Swans.
The Black Swan theory is that the outliers shape our world. And that has been true in tech for sure -- Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. are all anomalies. These companies grew enormously quickly and were all started by very young and inexperienced men. The two YC success stories that get pointed to -- AirBNB and DropBox -- were also started by the very young and inexperienced.
Older people are perhaps more likely to be successful. But there is less variance in their outcomes. There's the logic in investing -- once you're making money, you're less valuable. Because people know what you're worth. Before you make any money, people can ascribe crazy valuations to you. It will be wrong a lot of the time, but it doesn't matter because the one Black Swan event is what you're looking for. You only have to be right once.
But given the "startup = growth" essay, where he says that only 1 company per cycle makes any difference to YC's returns, I can see the logic behind ageism.
Young people (I'm not one of them anymore) just have more unpredictable outcomes. They are the Black Swans.
The Black Swan theory is that the outliers shape our world. And that has been true in tech for sure -- Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. are all anomalies. These companies grew enormously quickly and were all started by very young and inexperienced men. The two YC success stories that get pointed to -- AirBNB and DropBox -- were also started by the very young and inexperienced.
Older people are perhaps more likely to be successful. But there is less variance in their outcomes. There's the logic in investing -- once you're making money, you're less valuable. Because people know what you're worth. Before you make any money, people can ascribe crazy valuations to you. It will be wrong a lot of the time, but it doesn't matter because the one Black Swan event is what you're looking for. You only have to be right once.
No evidence? He is overt in bragging about his age discrimination. He is likely the "thought leader" who made this practice acceptable in Silicon Valley.
* citation needed
"The other cutoff, 38, has a lot more play in it. One reason I put it there is that I don't think many people have the physical stamina much past that age. I used to work till 2:00 or 3:00 AM every night, seven days a week. I don't know if I could do that now.
Also, startups are a big risk financially. If you try something that blows up and leaves you broke at 26, big deal; a lot of 26 year olds are broke. By 38 you can't take so many risks-- especially if you have kids."
http://www.paulgraham.com/start.html
Also, startups are a big risk financially. If you try something that blows up and leaves you broke at 26, big deal; a lot of 26 year olds are broke. By 38 you can't take so many risks-- especially if you have kids."
http://www.paulgraham.com/start.html
I don't see any bragging there. Those seem like reasonable and non-discriminatory observations.
I'm pretty happy that at 33 my life isn't really any different than it was at 17, except that I know more, have more stuff, have more money, and know more people. I guess I have slightly less physical endurance (although, not really), but rarely is that the primary factor for success.
Older people are perhaps more likely to be successful. But there is less variance in their outcomes.
We learn how to control our variance as we get older. (I'm 29, so I have no idea if I'm "young" or "old" by SV standards.) High-variance life isn't fun unless you hit an early home run. Otherwise, it's stressful and shitty. Experiences like getting fired because you were better than your CTO's-friend manager and made him insecure are pretty damaging, and they lead to self-filtering and variance-reduction as a survival strategy.
Give us an R&D environment that doesn't beat the shit out of high-variance people for 20 years, and you'll see a world where experience doesn't reduce variance so sharply, but delivers increases on the whole distribution.
We learn how to control our variance as we get older. (I'm 29, so I have no idea if I'm "young" or "old" by SV standards.) High-variance life isn't fun unless you hit an early home run. Otherwise, it's stressful and shitty. Experiences like getting fired because you were better than your CTO's-friend manager and made him insecure are pretty damaging, and they lead to self-filtering and variance-reduction as a survival strategy.
Give us an R&D environment that doesn't beat the shit out of high-variance people for 20 years, and you'll see a world where experience doesn't reduce variance so sharply, but delivers increases on the whole distribution.
Can we anchor this comment to the top of the discussion? You've eloquently characterized the entire problem and a potential solution.
So many current work environments have self defeating dynamics. You're not allowed to be better than your boss. When that gets thrown away (e.g. startups -- you have no boss) everybody can thrive. Well, they can thrive if they haven't been trained over a lifetime to be risk averse due to shitty management.
So many current work environments have self defeating dynamics. You're not allowed to be better than your boss. When that gets thrown away (e.g. startups -- you have no boss) everybody can thrive. Well, they can thrive if they haven't been trained over a lifetime to be risk averse due to shitty management.
>> High-variance life isn't fun unless you hit an early home run. Otherwise, it's stressful and shitty.
Story of my life! +1 to that!
Story of my life! +1 to that!
You nailed it with Older people are perhaps more likely to be successful. But there is less variance in their outcomes.
"Once you reach a certain age, if you haven't "made it," you aren't one of the smarter and much more capable people."
Do try not to believe in myths. Especially in 2012: people are young way longer than before and 'smarter and more capable' is quite relative.
Do try not to believe in myths. Especially in 2012: people are young way longer than before and 'smarter and more capable' is quite relative.
He probably doesn't have an opinion on this. Then if you accuse him of being ageist he will just push the problem to his applicant pool like he did with women. That's perfectly fine, I just don't think this is a very interesting issue to discuss with him.
It's pretty evident from His recent writings. The pg's opinions on the matter used to be more subtle, but I think in the recent few writings it's more overt. At one point, saying "young, unattached people are better than old people at technology startups" went from a What You Can't Say to something you can wink wink nudge nudge we all know it's true.
In fairness I think he'd also say he's excited to find exceptions to the rule and would encourage any older entrepreneurs to prove him wrong. You can acknowledge certain market realities and still support and maintain a strong meritocracy that doesn't discriminate against outliers.
You would make an amazing political speech writer.
I think this debate boils down to "acknowledging certain market realities" versus "creating market realities." If you advocate youth based startups, you have to define youth, which is entire subjective. "Youth" in this context probably just means "hasn't reached full creative potential."
Of course, people won't think that much. They'll see youth, think 25, then start evaluating the world from that viewpoint.
I think this debate boils down to "acknowledging certain market realities" versus "creating market realities." If you advocate youth based startups, you have to define youth, which is entire subjective. "Youth" in this context probably just means "hasn't reached full creative potential."
Of course, people won't think that much. They'll see youth, think 25, then start evaluating the world from that viewpoint.
Because clearly no other industries or regions in the US are biased against older workers.
Actually, no, not as much. That's the point of the article. Age bias is cited significantly more frequently in California. That's why the article is news. The first 1/3 of the article provides a few paragraphs worth of hard numbers and statistics.
California != Silicon Valley, though. It also includes the LA area, for example.
I'm not sure how scientific we really need to get about this. Go to San Francisco, go to Palo Alto, go to Mountain View and hang out with startup people. You will see this multiple times a day, and it will pervade your entire impression of the industry.
This phenomenon is not a secret, nor is it obscure.
This phenomenon is not a secret, nor is it obscure.
Oh, I am not disagreeing at all that this is a fact.
Just that the numbers they used to support it are a little weak (LA likely has worse age discrimination for example). It would have been better to not state numbers at all and stick to the rest of the details in the story.
Just that the numbers they used to support it are a little weak (LA likely has worse age discrimination for example). It would have been better to not state numbers at all and stick to the rest of the details in the story.
[deleted]
I've had someone in a YC funded company flat-out tell me that it was going to be a problem for me. (43, and no, he wasn't in the process of hiring me.)
This is America. Get litigious! Things are illegal for a reason. They can't ask about your age or family status.
When your CEO gets up and says "We don't hire anybody over 28 years old," a dozen lawsuits should be filed within a week. It's amazing people let other people get away with ruling the world this way.
*edit: I had over/under switched in the CEO quote. Fixed.
When your CEO gets up and says "We don't hire anybody over 28 years old," a dozen lawsuits should be filed within a week. It's amazing people let other people get away with ruling the world this way.
*edit: I had over/under switched in the CEO quote. Fixed.
Most states' (and federal) law protects older, not younger, workers... in many jurisdictions that means being over 40.
Are the laws really that specific? I thought the way it generally worked was that discrimination based on age was illegal, but being young is viewed as a proxy for inexperience, so discriminating on that basis is OK. I didn't know there was generally a specific cutoff.
Under U.S. federal law, age discrimination not only protects exclusively the old against the young, it also protects only those over 40.[1] Discrimination in the workplace and in public policy against the young is a big problem (in the moral sense, perhaps not an economic sense) that really has, as far as I can tell, political recognition among essentially no one.
1: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm
1: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm
They are indeed.
> The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) only forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older. It does not protect workers under the age of 40, although some states do have laws that protect younger workers from age discrimination.
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm
> The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) only forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older. It does not protect workers under the age of 40, although some states do have laws that protect younger workers from age discrimination.
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm
What's "family status"? AFAIK there is no protected "family status". The typical protected classes are race, sex, religion, age, and in some places, sexual orientation.
You shouldn't ask because you can't discriminate "because of marriage to, or association with, an individual of a particular race, religion, national origin, or an individual with a disability" (Title VII).
You don't know if the interviewee is married to a Muslim, an invalid, etc -- if they are, you're open to a lawsuit claiming that was the basis of your discrimination. Just don't ask!
You don't know if the interviewee is married to a Muslim, an invalid, etc -- if they are, you're open to a lawsuit claiming that was the basis of your discrimination. Just don't ask!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
Bullet point #7.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_i...
Bullet point #7.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_i...
Note that bullet point #7 only seems to apply to housing.
For the second link, it seems like most include protection for marriage status, but almost none for familial status. I'm not sure how that translates in this scenario.
For the second link, it seems like most include protection for marriage status, but almost none for familial status. I'm not sure how that translates in this scenario.
[deleted]
Usually "married with kids" or "are going through a divorce" or "has really sick parents/children they take care of."
Note: It's completely acceptable to discriminate against your boss though. If your boss is going through his fourth divorce and has 8 kids, maybe you don't want to work there.
Note: It's completely acceptable to discriminate against your boss though. If your boss is going through his fourth divorce and has 8 kids, maybe you don't want to work there.
For what it's worth, it wouldn't be a problem for you at all here (MongoHQ). Anecdotally, I don't think it would be a problem at the more desirable YC companies either.
I had someone look me in the eye and tell me that at age 32 I was "over the hill." (Wasn't at a YC company, though.)
That was five years ago, so I can only assume that now I'm completely useless for anything beyond gumming food into a paste-like consistency.
That was five years ago, so I can only assume that now I'm completely useless for anything beyond gumming food into a paste-like consistency.
There are companies that are the opposite in the Bay Area. Almost everyone where I work is over 30, with a median age around 40. These companies tend to be in the suburban south bay and the peninsula although vs SF & Berkeley.
Which company/companies, if I may ask?
It's not clear from your comment if it was an interview situation, or if it was casual conversation. If the latter, you should call them out.
I'm a fellow 43-year-old. I invest in early-stage startups, and that includes YC companies. I wouldn't invest in a company with that attitude for a very simple reason: they are handicapping themselves. I know what I'm capable of doing right now compared to when I was 25. Maybe I would be a great complement to my 25-year-old self.
The attitude reminds me of this:
"Bill Gates recalls once being invited to speak in Saudi Arabia and finding himself facing a segregated audience. Four-fifths of the listeners were men, on the left. The remaining one-fifth were women, all covered in black cloaks and veils, on the right. A partition separated the two groups. Toward the end, in the question-and-answer session, a member of the audience noted that Saudi Arabia aimed to be one of the Top 10 countries in the world in technology by 2010 and asked if that was realistic. “Well, if you’re not fully utilizing half the talent in the country,” Gates said, “you’re not going to get too close to the Top 10.” The small group on the right erupted in wild cheering."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/magazine/23Women-t.html?pa...
I'm a fellow 43-year-old. I invest in early-stage startups, and that includes YC companies. I wouldn't invest in a company with that attitude for a very simple reason: they are handicapping themselves. I know what I'm capable of doing right now compared to when I was 25. Maybe I would be a great complement to my 25-year-old self.
The attitude reminds me of this:
"Bill Gates recalls once being invited to speak in Saudi Arabia and finding himself facing a segregated audience. Four-fifths of the listeners were men, on the left. The remaining one-fifth were women, all covered in black cloaks and veils, on the right. A partition separated the two groups. Toward the end, in the question-and-answer session, a member of the audience noted that Saudi Arabia aimed to be one of the Top 10 countries in the world in technology by 2010 and asked if that was realistic. “Well, if you’re not fully utilizing half the talent in the country,” Gates said, “you’re not going to get too close to the Top 10.” The small group on the right erupted in wild cheering."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/magazine/23Women-t.html?pa...
It's not clear from your comment if it was an interview situation
It was not. Added one word to clarify.
It was not. Added one word to clarify.
I'm 37, and honestly this has started to scare me over the past couple years.
I'm 37, and honestly this has started to scare me over the past couple years.
This is a coping strategy - not a fighting strategy - but think about options for working by/for yourself.
Playing the grizzled consultant rich in lessons learned can play well. You're, unfortunately, working with the opposite age bias that anybody under 30 doesn't know what they're talking about.
Ageism wasn't a major factor - but it was a minor one - when I decided to start my own company up again when I hit forty.
I figure that I'm not going to discriminate against myself ;-)
This is a coping strategy - not a fighting strategy - but think about options for working by/for yourself.
Playing the grizzled consultant rich in lessons learned can play well. You're, unfortunately, working with the opposite age bias that anybody under 30 doesn't know what they're talking about.
Ageism wasn't a major factor - but it was a minor one - when I decided to start my own company up again when I hit forty.
I figure that I'm not going to discriminate against myself ;-)
I'm inclined to think 47% of Hacker News is 37.
Just get an eyelift surgery and a pair of Converse and you'll be golden!
And you should be even more scared.
Ditto (also 37)
I'm 37 and have not been concerned. If I compare my current work to that I did a decade ago, it's obvious to me how much better I am -- faster, better at design, fewer bugs, etc. AFAIK, no one has turned me down for work because I'm too old. Perhaps they've chosen someone younger and less expensive, but that's fine by me -- maybe not a rational choice, but not one based on discrimination.
Other than code quality, how was I different as a 25 year-old? Much more likely to adopt new technologies, libraries, etc. because they were shiny and hyped. Did this serve me well? Sometimes I got lucky, but I also wasted a lot of time figuring out the hard way that Technology X was way too bleeding edge for production. I was way too willing to go along with (or even suggest!), massive, all-things-to-all-people architectures which looked great as block diagrams but didn't match up with timelines, project risk, etc. Now, I push for incremental change over big bang projects.
One way I've regressed in the eyes of an employer: I'm no longer willing to put in long hours in exchange for vague promises of future pay-outs (bonus, promotion, whatever).
Other than code quality, how was I different as a 25 year-old? Much more likely to adopt new technologies, libraries, etc. because they were shiny and hyped. Did this serve me well? Sometimes I got lucky, but I also wasted a lot of time figuring out the hard way that Technology X was way too bleeding edge for production. I was way too willing to go along with (or even suggest!), massive, all-things-to-all-people architectures which looked great as block diagrams but didn't match up with timelines, project risk, etc. Now, I push for incremental change over big bang projects.
One way I've regressed in the eyes of an employer: I'm no longer willing to put in long hours in exchange for vague promises of future pay-outs (bonus, promotion, whatever).
Two points:
1. There's a big difference between job-searching at 40 and job-searching at 60. At 60, you're potentially 5 years away from retirement, so it's not surprising that companies are hesitant to hire.
2. Depending on the specific startup, younger people really may be more effective, at least in certain areas. For example, something like Facebook (during its early days), which targeted college students. A twenty-something will have much more insight into the mind of a college student than a 60-something. This obviously doesn't apply to areas of the company that don't relate directly to the end users.
Edit: I don't agree with the logic of companies, I was just playing devil's advocate.
1. There's a big difference between job-searching at 40 and job-searching at 60. At 60, you're potentially 5 years away from retirement, so it's not surprising that companies are hesitant to hire.
2. Depending on the specific startup, younger people really may be more effective, at least in certain areas. For example, something like Facebook (during its early days), which targeted college students. A twenty-something will have much more insight into the mind of a college student than a 60-something. This obviously doesn't apply to areas of the company that don't relate directly to the end users.
Edit: I don't agree with the logic of companies, I was just playing devil's advocate.
I don't know why you wouldn't hire someone if 5 years is all you could expect. Do you seriously believe that your retention rates will be higher for someone under 30? Also, why would someone in technology need to retire at 65?
Yes, but that 55-year-old engineer will code it far better, what with his 20 years of experience and all...
I don't know what industry you work in, but 5 years in software is a lifetime.
A real issue, but lame scope. 50 is really a wall... you run into all sorts of 50-somethings who are basically wandering souls doing random consulting things after they get RIF'ed from some big corporation.
It's not a phenomenon specific to Silicon Valley. But insular culture of SV is more well known, but exists anywhere there is a cluster of particular types of business.
It's not a phenomenon specific to Silicon Valley. But insular culture of SV is more well known, but exists anywhere there is a cluster of particular types of business.
Dirty yes, secret no.
Straight talk:
I'm the CTO at a startup and I often have to call out the founders and employees for ageism. I resent that they say things that make me think they wouldn't take hiring an experienced engineer seriously.
I resent that they think my profession is best served by dumb happy newbies with no private life.
I refuse to tolerate this in any company I work for and I will ceaselessly call them out for this ageism.
I'm 24 years old and I will not stop programming just because I eventually grow a unix beard.
Straight talk:
I'm the CTO at a startup and I often have to call out the founders and employees for ageism. I resent that they say things that make me think they wouldn't take hiring an experienced engineer seriously.
I resent that they think my profession is best served by dumb happy newbies with no private life.
I refuse to tolerate this in any company I work for and I will ceaselessly call them out for this ageism.
I'm 24 years old and I will not stop programming just because I eventually grow a unix beard.
"... by dumb happy newbies with no private life."
Interesting choice of words to attack ageism :)
Interesting choice of words to attack ageism :)
I know plenty of 20-somethings that are married (I'm from the midwest) and relatively experienced in their work. (6+ years professional experience)
I also know yuppies angling for a "big win" whose only joy in life is playing Xbox at work and getting drunk. Who at the age of ~26 only have a couple years experience because they were too busy partying in college and didn't build anything while in school.
But they totally know how to run a company because they 'get' product and engagement and read Hacker News.
People come in all shapes and sizes.
It's not about the age, it's about wisdom and where you are in life.
You could be 26 or 56. I don't care as long as you care about your work and what you do.
I also know yuppies angling for a "big win" whose only joy in life is playing Xbox at work and getting drunk. Who at the age of ~26 only have a couple years experience because they were too busy partying in college and didn't build anything while in school.
But they totally know how to run a company because they 'get' product and engagement and read Hacker News.
People come in all shapes and sizes.
It's not about the age, it's about wisdom and where you are in life.
You could be 26 or 56. I don't care as long as you care about your work and what you do.
> I refuse to tolerate this in any company I work for and I will ceaselessly call them out for this ageism.
And yet they appointed a 24 year old as CTO. Better pack up your stuff, since you refuse to tolerate it.
And yet they appointed a 24 year old as CTO. Better pack up your stuff, since you refuse to tolerate it.
Just because he's young doesn't mean it's ageism.
I don't know where he works or the company's circumstances, but in most cases, only a small tech start up that values youth over experience (or is on a shoestring budget) will appoint someone in their early 20s to an executive-level position.
I dislike that this conversation became about me but:
They'll usually do that when he's the most experienced person in the company (like I was and am).
I've been working since I was 18, not 22. That makes for six years rather than the usual two, and the first 5-10 years of a career are pretty impactful for everyone.
Further, they were very dense years spent studying on my own time and working a lot of contracts.
I didn't sit in a junior position at a large corporation, I've had enough time to become a decent backend engineer in my own right but also develop a decent specialization. In addition to that, my contracting and consulting background has made me somewhat less provincial than when I started so I'm capable of relating to business needs as a C-level needs to.
I don't question your capacity to perform your job without knowing you, please afford others the same respect. I was trying to talk about the prejudice in the industry, not have it projected against me in the opposite direction. (Against younger people)
They'll usually do that when he's the most experienced person in the company (like I was and am).
I've been working since I was 18, not 22. That makes for six years rather than the usual two, and the first 5-10 years of a career are pretty impactful for everyone.
Further, they were very dense years spent studying on my own time and working a lot of contracts.
I didn't sit in a junior position at a large corporation, I've had enough time to become a decent backend engineer in my own right but also develop a decent specialization. In addition to that, my contracting and consulting background has made me somewhat less provincial than when I started so I'm capable of relating to business needs as a C-level needs to.
I don't question your capacity to perform your job without knowing you, please afford others the same respect. I was trying to talk about the prejudice in the industry, not have it projected against me in the opposite direction. (Against younger people)
[deleted]
Permit(4)
I'm in my 40s now, and the number of times I've been brought into a startup suffering under the plague of 20-something founder's grandiose ideas of how things should be done vs. the nearly 20 years of real world experience that says otherwise would surprise you.
Youth might fuel the launch of your product, but experience will help it keep flying.
Youth might fuel the launch of your product, but experience will help it keep flying.
I know the value of experience because I know what my code looked like 5 and 10 years ago. I also know how incredibly poor my judgment was back then compared to now.
I can only imagine what 20 years will do for me. That's why I actively seek out more experience in candidates because I believe it'll make them more competent and sharp at what they do.
Somebody with battle-scars is something a startup could really use. Most of my pre-startup experience is as a contractor/consultant.
I can only imagine what 20 years will do for me. That's why I actively seek out more experience in candidates because I believe it'll make them more competent and sharp at what they do.
Somebody with battle-scars is something a startup could really use. Most of my pre-startup experience is as a contractor/consultant.
> Somebody with battle-scars is something a startup could really use. Most of my pre-startup experience is as a contractor/consultant.
Lots of young engineers don't know how to interview. (In addition to being interviewed by young ones lately, I also realize how I've fucked it up back then.) Lots of them don't know how to listen. The vast majority don't know how much they don't know.
Lots of young engineers don't know how to interview. (In addition to being interviewed by young ones lately, I also realize how I've fucked it up back then.) Lots of them don't know how to listen. The vast majority don't know how much they don't know.
I also realize how I've fucked it up back then
Really that's been the story of my 30's. A series of cringe-worthy realizations that I was not nearly as good at my job as I thought I was at 26.
Really that's been the story of my 30's. A series of cringe-worthy realizations that I was not nearly as good at my job as I thought I was at 26.
I've worked with developers in their fifties- they're scary good.
I've also worked with developers in their fifties who are awful.
Age bias is awful, and I have worked with a lot of older developers who know their stuff and are extremely competent, but the idea that 25 years of experience automatically makes you a better programmer is wrong. Good developers are able to learn and adapt quickly, and often older developers can't do that.
Age bias is awful, and I have worked with a lot of older developers who know their stuff and are extremely competent, but the idea that 25 years of experience automatically makes you a better programmer is wrong. Good developers are able to learn and adapt quickly, and often older developers can't do that.
I've also worked with developers in their fifties who are awful.
Me to.
And I've worked with devs in the 20s who are awful. And their 30s. And their 40s. And their 60s.
I've also worked with great devs in all those age ranges.
Proportions seem about the same to me.
Good developers are able to learn and adapt quickly, and often older developers can't do that.
I've not noticed a difference.
I have noticed that it's harder to spot the folk in their 20s who don't learn and adapt quickly since folk in their 20s have to learn something to make any progress at all. Once that pressure is off and they've become fixated on Rails / C# / whatever they seem just as unlikely to change as any other age range. They just get fixated on the "cool" thing - so it takes longer to spot.
Me to.
And I've worked with devs in the 20s who are awful. And their 30s. And their 40s. And their 60s.
I've also worked with great devs in all those age ranges.
Proportions seem about the same to me.
Good developers are able to learn and adapt quickly, and often older developers can't do that.
I've not noticed a difference.
I have noticed that it's harder to spot the folk in their 20s who don't learn and adapt quickly since folk in their 20s have to learn something to make any progress at all. Once that pressure is off and they've become fixated on Rails / C# / whatever they seem just as unlikely to change as any other age range. They just get fixated on the "cool" thing - so it takes longer to spot.
> Proportions seem about the same to me.
Are you sure the proportion was the same? Reason I am asking is because for people who are bad at programming, there are various process/ management roles available that might better suit.
It seems rather impossible to me that someone would voluntarily continue programming for a couple of decades and not be excellent.
Beyond the 30's, I imagine people would be passionate about it to continue taking up programming roles. And this passion should translate into excellence.
Happy to be corrected if you have any data-points.
Are you sure the proportion was the same? Reason I am asking is because for people who are bad at programming, there are various process/ management roles available that might better suit.
It seems rather impossible to me that someone would voluntarily continue programming for a couple of decades and not be excellent.
Beyond the 30's, I imagine people would be passionate about it to continue taking up programming roles. And this passion should translate into excellence.
Happy to be corrected if you have any data-points.
It seems rather impossible to me that someone would voluntarily continue programming for a couple of decades and not be excellent.
I don't have any hard data I'm afraid - just my fallible recollections ;-)
Some of ways of getting non-excellent old developers that I've observed:
* Not all old developers have been programming for a couple of decades. People can and do come into development late - and suffer all the normal problems of newbie developers.
* You'll be amazed at how little work you can get away with in some large organisations. When you have a couple of hundred people on a project you will find one or two Wallys from Dilbert.
* The devs who have sunk deep into some gnarly legacy system or language. Being the person who knows the right bit to tweak in the middle of a 1500 line procedure in the middle of a big-ball-of-mud project might be stupidly valuable to a company - but produce a lousy developer in any other context.
* The "senior" developer / architect / lead who has been Peter Principled to their level of incompetence, but whose team is good enough to cover up the deficit in leadership ability.
* The large chunk of bad developers (of all ages) who don't realise they're bad developers. Folk can't improve until they understand where they suck.
I don't have any hard data I'm afraid - just my fallible recollections ;-)
Some of ways of getting non-excellent old developers that I've observed:
* Not all old developers have been programming for a couple of decades. People can and do come into development late - and suffer all the normal problems of newbie developers.
* You'll be amazed at how little work you can get away with in some large organisations. When you have a couple of hundred people on a project you will find one or two Wallys from Dilbert.
* The devs who have sunk deep into some gnarly legacy system or language. Being the person who knows the right bit to tweak in the middle of a 1500 line procedure in the middle of a big-ball-of-mud project might be stupidly valuable to a company - but produce a lousy developer in any other context.
* The "senior" developer / architect / lead who has been Peter Principled to their level of incompetence, but whose team is good enough to cover up the deficit in leadership ability.
* The large chunk of bad developers (of all ages) who don't realise they're bad developers. Folk can't improve until they understand where they suck.
[deleted]
> but the idea that 25 years of experience automatically makes you a better programmer is wrong
No one is suggesting that it does. However, to dismiss 25 years of experience as nothing is equally, if not more wrong. Consider that all other things being equal, the person with 25 years of experience will be better than the person with 0.
> Good developers are able to learn and adapt quickly, and often older developers can't do that.
What you are saying here is: Often, older developers aren't good. Maybe that's not what you mean, but that is what you are saying.
As for your assertion that good developers are able to learn and adapt quickly, I'm not sure what you mean (not sure of the context here).
No one is suggesting that it does. However, to dismiss 25 years of experience as nothing is equally, if not more wrong. Consider that all other things being equal, the person with 25 years of experience will be better than the person with 0.
> Good developers are able to learn and adapt quickly, and often older developers can't do that.
What you are saying here is: Often, older developers aren't good. Maybe that's not what you mean, but that is what you are saying.
As for your assertion that good developers are able to learn and adapt quickly, I'm not sure what you mean (not sure of the context here).
No personal experience here but my gut feeling is that older developers are more likely to be closer to the one or the other extreme. The theory being that those who are average tend to move to middle/senior management, leaving behind those that are either brilliant hardcore hackers or incompetent clock punchers.
I find there are less awful developers over 40 than under 40. Eventually your reputation catches up with you and it is very difficult to hide decades of incompetence.
>the idea that 25 years of experience automatically makes you a better programmer is wrong.
Seriously? You think you can do something for 25 years without getting better at it?
Seriously? You think you can do something for 25 years without getting better at it?
There's an old quote that I've seen attributed to lots of different people that for this situation can be paraphrased:
"Some people have 25 years of experience in a field while others have one year of experience repeated 25 times"
So yeah, anyone who is developing software and keeps learning new things and pushing their boundaries is going to improve quite a bit over those years, but someone who just sticks with the same language/framework and basically reimplements the same CRUD app over and over is probably not going to knock your socks off no matter how long they've been at it.
Source: I'm a 39 year old developer and have worked with fantastic older developers and terrible older developers.
"Some people have 25 years of experience in a field while others have one year of experience repeated 25 times"
So yeah, anyone who is developing software and keeps learning new things and pushing their boundaries is going to improve quite a bit over those years, but someone who just sticks with the same language/framework and basically reimplements the same CRUD app over and over is probably not going to knock your socks off no matter how long they've been at it.
Source: I'm a 39 year old developer and have worked with fantastic older developers and terrible older developers.
Yeah, I do. I think the only constant thing in software engineering is that you need to be able to learn and adapt. If you spend 25 years at a single organization where you aren't forced to continuously learn and adapt, you'll be at a disadvantage when you are inevitably forced to do something outside of your comfort zone.
You are addressing the statement "a person with 25 years experience is always going to be better than a person with 5 years experience" - and I agree with you, that's not always the case.
But, I'm saying, all other things being equal (which is what I meant by "You think you can do something for 25 years without getting better at it?" I mean, I meant the /you/ specifically, but it applies to "any one individual")
I mean, there are a lot of other factors. I'm just saying, all other things being equal, you get better with experience. UNIX is far older than I am. So is C. Yeah, how you use both has changed a lot... but most people that have remained employed that long follow those changes.
>I think the only constant thing in software engineering is that you need to be able to learn and adapt.
Lisp, anyone? Most concepts in programming are older than I am. Many of the "new" concepts are rehashes of old concepts.
Actually, I think this goes back to what someone else was saying; It's harder to say "This time it's different" to someone with experience.
I know I've been watching these articles about how vc is switching to "enterprise" and away from "consumer" - My first thought was "wow, I remember the same thing in the very late '90s. they called it 'b2b' but it was the same thing- people eventually realized they needed to start making money."
Many companies seem to want employees that buy into the 'vision' even if that vision is clearly as ridiculous as selling dogfood over the internet. (I mean, selling dogfood over the internet is a valid business model, but it's not the billion dollar business that pets.com hyped it up to be. Just like facebook has a reasonable business model; it's just not the billion dollar business everyone thinks it is.)
Of course, I'm not sure how much that has to do with being old. I wasn't old enough to drink until after the first .com crash, and living and working through it, even as a kid, it was obviously ridiculous.
But, I'm saying, all other things being equal (which is what I meant by "You think you can do something for 25 years without getting better at it?" I mean, I meant the /you/ specifically, but it applies to "any one individual")
I mean, there are a lot of other factors. I'm just saying, all other things being equal, you get better with experience. UNIX is far older than I am. So is C. Yeah, how you use both has changed a lot... but most people that have remained employed that long follow those changes.
>I think the only constant thing in software engineering is that you need to be able to learn and adapt.
Lisp, anyone? Most concepts in programming are older than I am. Many of the "new" concepts are rehashes of old concepts.
Actually, I think this goes back to what someone else was saying; It's harder to say "This time it's different" to someone with experience.
I know I've been watching these articles about how vc is switching to "enterprise" and away from "consumer" - My first thought was "wow, I remember the same thing in the very late '90s. they called it 'b2b' but it was the same thing- people eventually realized they needed to start making money."
Many companies seem to want employees that buy into the 'vision' even if that vision is clearly as ridiculous as selling dogfood over the internet. (I mean, selling dogfood over the internet is a valid business model, but it's not the billion dollar business that pets.com hyped it up to be. Just like facebook has a reasonable business model; it's just not the billion dollar business everyone thinks it is.)
Of course, I'm not sure how much that has to do with being old. I wasn't old enough to drink until after the first .com crash, and living and working through it, even as a kid, it was obviously ridiculous.
As have I, but only when I was a contractor. I always looked forward to pairing up with the experienced engineers. I learned the most on those days.
I've been meaning to write an article on this for awhile, but there's really no substitute for age diversity on a team. Having worked for the past year at a place with a fairly smooth gradient from just-out-of-school to used-COBOL-professionally, I can say from experience that it has been a benefit for both the older and younger employees.
Of course, the key is still, as always, cultural fit. You have to have youngsters who are willing to take to heart a hard-learned lesson from a graybeard, and veteran devs who are willing to keep an open mind to a new technology espoused by the younger generation.
Of course, the key is still, as always, cultural fit. You have to have youngsters who are willing to take to heart a hard-learned lesson from a graybeard, and veteran devs who are willing to keep an open mind to a new technology espoused by the younger generation.
It's not just old guys, you know. 8 years ago, I was able to design the same quality of websites, yet no one gave a fuck because I was 'too young' according to them. Today, they are ready to pay me thousands of dollars because I have the age factor and a couple of white hairs. Many people are under the wrong notion that age = experience. While it may be partially true, it isn't all the time. When you're young, you have the urge (and the energy) to make some really bold choices, which you will think twice to make when you reach a certain age (especially when you're married, have kids, etc..). So yeah....age bias sucks!!
Yes - it does run both ways ;-)
Back in the distant past when I was in my 20's I was the Technical Director of a company (kinda-sorta CTOish equivalent). One of the guys I hired in ops was in his late forties, early fifties.
We worked in the same office.
We regularly got great entertainment value from people who had come to talk to me naturally walked over to the nicely dressed distinguished looking guy at the large desk (needed for building new kit) rather than the pony tailed youth in the corner ;)
Back in the distant past when I was in my 20's I was the Technical Director of a company (kinda-sorta CTOish equivalent). One of the guys I hired in ops was in his late forties, early fifties.
We worked in the same office.
We regularly got great entertainment value from people who had come to talk to me naturally walked over to the nicely dressed distinguished looking guy at the large desk (needed for building new kit) rather than the pony tailed youth in the corner ;)
The thing is, children say this all the time whilst getting scolded/warned/informed too. While I agree one shouldn't be written off immediately due to age, my experience is that in the case of younger people, they actually are inexperienced and naive and simply pitch a fit, blaming discrimination and everything/anything else, because they fail to recognize that about themselves.
Isn't this partly because SV is most interested in developing social apps for hip teenagers?
It's probably difficult for a 40 something year old to know how to design an application for this crowd.
It's probably difficult for a 40 something year old to know how to design an application for this crowd.
This line of thought doesn't make sense to me, because marketers are in the same business of getting into the heads of the 18-25 demographic and they seem to do pretty well at it despite not being 18-25-year-olds themselves.
Where did you get the stats that majority of successful marketers are not within 18-25 age range?
Common sense.
I suspect the most successful companies have user bases with a very significant portion of users in their 30s and 40s. If not an actual majority.
EDIT: Some stats here - http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/22/social-media-demographics-...
Worth noting that on that chart, HN has the second lowest avg age.
EDIT: Some stats here - http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/22/social-media-demographics-...
Worth noting that on that chart, HN has the second lowest avg age.
I am not convinced that there is something inherently special with the ways young people consume technology that only other young people have mystical insight towards. There are people in their fifties on HN, tweeting away before twitter was cool and avidly using Pinterest. I think it is more about what you find interesting rather than how old you are.
After all, I would think that 80-90% of toys are designed by people who are not between the ages of 3-9. I am fairly certain these toys are profitable.
After all, I would think that 80-90% of toys are designed by people who are not between the ages of 3-9. I am fairly certain these toys are profitable.
Well the canonical example would be facebook, designed by a young guy specifically for young people.
I'm not sure what the mean age of the early adopters of stuff like pinterest is but I'm guessing under 30.
I'm not sure what the mean age of the early adopters of stuff like pinterest is but I'm guessing under 30.
The vast majority of Pinterest users are over 35 and the average age is 40. Roughly 80% of the users are also female. Given that, I would be surprised if the early adopter of Pinterest was your stereotypical 25 year old male developer that these companies look for.
...and the purpose of that young guy's site has turned into showing pictures of grandchildren to grandparents.
I thought the hivemind determined pint' was one of those middle age middle america housewife demos?
I thought the hivemind determined pint' was one of those middle age middle america housewife demos?
Those two statements might be completely valid but don't necessarily disprove my point. :-)
I am sure there are old people who suck at this stuff, as are there young people who are great at this. The point here is that you can't sweep people with a broad brush using one parameter. You get to know the people and figure out whether they would be the right people to build your team without going by silly filters like age or sex or whatever.
I am sure there are old people who suck at this stuff, as are there young people who are great at this. The point here is that you can't sweep people with a broad brush using one parameter. You get to know the people and figure out whether they would be the right people to build your team without going by silly filters like age or sex or whatever.
My first thought: narcissism. Narcissists hate being around older people because it reminds them that, some day, they'll be old and unable to do the sorts of things that narcissists tend to do on the weekend. I don't think that all founders are narcissists, but if you want to be able to hire narcissists (which 75% of execs are, let's be honest) then ageism becomes practical, sadly.
Then again, I think some of it is subconscious and unintentional: unreasonably harsh age-grading, coming from an inexperienced and privileged set of people who've never had to do grunt work and therefore have slack-free careers. People who are young and have high career efficiency ratios expect a linear trend-- consistently improving projects-- but the reality for most people (save privileged 22-year-olds) is that they have to take the work they get, rather than being able to focus on their passion or highly-visible (e.g. open source) work. I, personally, would love to hire someone in his 60s with no slack in his career-- I'd make him my personal mentor and figure out how he did it-- but it's quite rare to find such a person.
The reason ageism exists is that most people have to take low-quality, career-toxic work to (a) avoid income volatility that becomes more unacceptable with age, (b) evade the "job hopper" stigma, and (c) remain employable without moving to another city every 3 years, and this creates a world in which premature decline is far more common than it should be.
Then again, I think some of it is subconscious and unintentional: unreasonably harsh age-grading, coming from an inexperienced and privileged set of people who've never had to do grunt work and therefore have slack-free careers. People who are young and have high career efficiency ratios expect a linear trend-- consistently improving projects-- but the reality for most people (save privileged 22-year-olds) is that they have to take the work they get, rather than being able to focus on their passion or highly-visible (e.g. open source) work. I, personally, would love to hire someone in his 60s with no slack in his career-- I'd make him my personal mentor and figure out how he did it-- but it's quite rare to find such a person.
The reason ageism exists is that most people have to take low-quality, career-toxic work to (a) avoid income volatility that becomes more unacceptable with age, (b) evade the "job hopper" stigma, and (c) remain employable without moving to another city every 3 years, and this creates a world in which premature decline is far more common than it should be.
> (a) avoid income volatility that becomes more unacceptable with age, (b) evade the "job hopper" stigma
(a) Ding! I had to drop out of college to support my parents.
(b) Ding! I stuck around with jobs that made my physically unstable and emotionally depressed because otherwise I would have been unemployable.
I was originally an iOS dev, which I love, and I hate Android programming, but I've been forced by circumstance to get reasonably good at it over the past two years. And yet to some of the people I know, I'm the "old" guy, and I haven't even hit my mid-twenties.
(a) Ding! I had to drop out of college to support my parents.
(b) Ding! I stuck around with jobs that made my physically unstable and emotionally depressed because otherwise I would have been unemployable.
I was originally an iOS dev, which I love, and I hate Android programming, but I've been forced by circumstance to get reasonably good at it over the past two years. And yet to some of the people I know, I'm the "old" guy, and I haven't even hit my mid-twenties.
> yet to some of the people I know, I'm the "old" guy, and I haven't even hit my mid-twenties.
If that's the case, it speaks to the immaturity of some of the people you know.
If that's the case, it speaks to the immaturity of some of the people you know.
What kind of things do narcissists do on the weekend that would be specifically limited by age?
Many SV startups are proxies for being a close knit frat. Hiring for "cultural fit" has gone way off the wacko deep end. (Did google start this? "Oh, you don't have a degree? We won't hire you. Oh, but you do make your own beer and wear funny shoes? Cultural fit! Hired!")
Your job description skills matter, but only if you also are a functional alcoholic who is addicted to playing online games for 30+ hours a week in addition to working 60+ hours a week.*
Startup is Mother. Startup is Father.
* I write this out of bitterness because I don't drink or play video games, which oddly I feel disqualifies me from working many places. "Oh, you don't play xbox? That's okay, I guess. The entire company gets together for six hours on Friday to drink and play marathon games though."
Your job description skills matter, but only if you also are a functional alcoholic who is addicted to playing online games for 30+ hours a week in addition to working 60+ hours a week.*
Startup is Mother. Startup is Father.
* I write this out of bitterness because I don't drink or play video games, which oddly I feel disqualifies me from working many places. "Oh, you don't play xbox? That's okay, I guess. The entire company gets together for six hours on Friday to drink and play marathon games though."
I'm in the same category. I don't enjoy drinking and I hate most video games, especially console ones and especially FPSes. The SV frat culture is such a turnoff.
What's absolutely hilarious about it is that it's not the same frat culture that typifies Wall Street. It's the nerd frats.
Despite being a "nerd", I think the more traditional sort of 'frat' is actually a lot more inviting. Without the video-game nonsense I think it is actually more accepting of lifestyles that don't involve primarily a couch. The thought of spending my own freetime playing video-games is revolting to me, I associate it with depression and loneliness (yes, online or otherwise multiplayer games too). It really seems like one of those all-or-nothing activities where you either spend hours a week doing it, living it, or you are forever the outsider.
Sure you can game in moderation, but if you do so you won't be a gamer. I think I average maybe a handful of hours a month playing games, and that is as much as I will ever see myself caring to spend on them. There is no way for me to relate to people who call themselves gamers.
Sure you can game in moderation, but if you do so you won't be a gamer. I think I average maybe a handful of hours a month playing games, and that is as much as I will ever see myself caring to spend on them. There is no way for me to relate to people who call themselves gamers.
The problem for me is the time investment required to be any good at gaming. When people say they want to play Super Smash Bros. or Halo or something, I have no idea what I'm supposed to do, no one wants to show me what to do, and so I lose interest very quickly. It's not like watching a movie, where you can spend two hours on it and come out with a decent understanding of the movie, even if you aren't a movie buff.
I think I know exactly what you mean. Super Smash Bros. is actually the exact game that made me realize I was no longer going to pretend to be a gamer, for exactly the reasons you explain.
It's not an all-or-nothing choice, though. I've had an Xbox 360 for years, and when my kids were born/adopted, I barely touched it. I hate playing against the knobs on Xbox Live, so I just stick with the single player stuff, or find friends to explore maps and blow stuff up. Very immature, I know. But it's fun. Look at my post up above...My Xbox is an early generation and I still hardly play it because I have better things to do most of the time.
I'm not sure what preconceptions you have about "gamers" are, but from what I know, most gamers are in their 30's and have lives outside of video games.
I wouldn't call myself a "gamer", as per your definition, but I've loved playing video games since the early 80's, which might not register with your experience. I'm an ordinary guy with a beautiful wife and kids. Not sure what your beef is.
I'm not sure what preconceptions you have about "gamers" are, but from what I know, most gamers are in their 30's and have lives outside of video games.
I wouldn't call myself a "gamer", as per your definition, but I've loved playing video games since the early 80's, which might not register with your experience. I'm an ordinary guy with a beautiful wife and kids. Not sure what your beef is.
I am talking about the "is addicted to playing online games for 30+ hours a week in addition to working 60+ hours a week." type.
I'll play video-games on occasion but to be able to pass myself off in that sort of gamer culture is I think impossible unless you are willing to glue yourself to a television for hours and hours a week.
Other types of "frats" do not need that level of dedication I think.
I'll play video-games on occasion but to be able to pass myself off in that sort of gamer culture is I think impossible unless you are willing to glue yourself to a television for hours and hours a week.
Other types of "frats" do not need that level of dedication I think.
[deleted]
As a 40-year-old with two small kids, I understand about the video games, but only because I took a hiatus for a few years. I love playing Halo (I just ordered Halo 4), but not to play against teenagers on XBox Live. I like it for the solo campaign...so I can blast the shit out of aliens and have fun. Then, I get back to RealVille and take care of my kids. Also, having a few beers while playing is fun for me, but I completely understand your point of view. Maybe it's a midwest thing...eat cheese, drink beer, play games...have fun. When you get older you relish the free time to screw around and not have to be productive.
Wow, I would have been a "poor fit" when I was 20-30 because (1) I can't stand the taste of most alcoholic beverages, (2) I can't stand being around drunks, and (3) I thought the purpose of having a job was to do some damned work, not find a social club.
For me, work is about doing something that produces value for the shareholders so they can afford write me a paycheck on a regular basis. When I've finished doing that, I'd like to use my time the way I see fit, thank you very much.
For me, work is about doing something that produces value for the shareholders so they can afford write me a paycheck on a regular basis. When I've finished doing that, I'd like to use my time the way I see fit, thank you very much.
I don't drink either, but I don't find it a barrier in hanging out with friends that do all the time. They have to get really drunk to start becoming obnoxious, which means they would be in no condition to play video games. As long as you don't act judgmental, many people will come to accept you not drinking.
> The entire company gets together for six hours on Friday to drink and play marathon games though.
Ugh I hate that. This one time, there was a few hours to bridge between the end of the work day and the start of the office Christmas party (presumably because some management guys had to drive back from out of town). The other programmers quickly set up a multiplayer Starcraft game and later an FPS deathmatch. I quickly found out both types of games are not a lot of fun unless you possess a modicum of skill in them (unlike, say, Tetris or 1000 Blank White Cards).
Ugh I hate that. This one time, there was a few hours to bridge between the end of the work day and the start of the office Christmas party (presumably because some management guys had to drive back from out of town). The other programmers quickly set up a multiplayer Starcraft game and later an FPS deathmatch. I quickly found out both types of games are not a lot of fun unless you possess a modicum of skill in them (unlike, say, Tetris or 1000 Blank White Cards).
Huge fan of the Xbox, personally, but I'm inclined to agree with you.
i have a high-school degree and did two interviews with google, second of which followed up to live interview with MV engineers. didn't got hired because i wasn't good enough and i suck at interviews. always felt i was being judged by my talent, so i think that may be a myth ?
edit: smartphone typos and minor edit
I do drink socially and for religious reasons, but I'm far more inclined to playing Prince of Persia or Diddy Kong Racing than some random recent FPS. Oy, does that disqualify me from all of Silicon Valley? I guess I'll just have to make do...
I got to mention that reading your comment, had me in splits, at 2 or 3 places ... "Oh, you don't have a degree? We won't hire you. Oh, but you do make your own beer and wear funny shoes? Cultural fit! Hired!" :-) ... "Startup is Mother. Startup is Father." How do you think that one? :-) :-)
Late night clubbing and extreme sports?
Fred Becky was climbing El Cap well into his 80's. You might have something with clubbing though.
[deleted]
There are less chances that they have children and a serious relationship so they are supposed to have more freedom to do what they want.
This isn't of course a general assumption. I know married persons with children who spend way more time than me on personal projects the week end.
Narcissism doesn't seem to me to be a life sentence sort of thing, although it can be. I think that the general point being made is that narcissists tend to be younger, and then many of us grow out of it. Whether it's the realization of my own mortality, being in a serious relationship, or (just even thinking about) having a child, I definitely can feel my perspective broadening as I get older, growing from the laser-like focus I used to have solely on myself, to now encompass the happiness and well-being of those around me.
So maybe it's not the narcissists are limited by age, but rather that age limits narcissism.
So maybe it's not the narcissists are limited by age, but rather that age limits narcissism.
I disagree. As I get older and see my friends who are programmers, I see a key issue: Becoming set in your ways for better or worse, which leads to... not as willing to change or learn new stuff.
To be fair there are exceptions. There are people who just enjoy programming for the sake of programming and building stuff. These programmers will most likely never be out of date. If you're not one of those people, then you need to force yourself to step out of your comfort zone and try to use something new at least every year if not more often.
To be fair there are exceptions. There are people who just enjoy programming for the sake of programming and building stuff. These programmers will most likely never be out of date. If you're not one of those people, then you need to force yourself to step out of your comfort zone and try to use something new at least every year if not more often.
[deleted](1)
There is also a story that goes the other way... that as you grow older you realize its not worth working with those types of people. The last place I want to work personally is at a place stacked with narcissists all trying to figure out how they can prop up their own egos (while this does not define many startups it also unfortunately from my experience does define quite a few).
Life is too short to not be working with decent people.
That being said if you have the opportunity to work with some people who have been in tech for 20 or 30 years - become their buddy - you're more than likely to find out they are some of the smartest out there. When I was first out of college I worked at a place where the 2 guys I sat next to were 40 and 50 years old - they still are the best mentors/collaborators Ive ever had.
Life is too short to not be working with decent people.
That being said if you have the opportunity to work with some people who have been in tech for 20 or 30 years - become their buddy - you're more than likely to find out they are some of the smartest out there. When I was first out of college I worked at a place where the 2 guys I sat next to were 40 and 50 years old - they still are the best mentors/collaborators Ive ever had.
The narcissism theory sounds like an arbitrary rationalization. The following would sound just as plausible, if not more:
"Narcissists hate being around young people because it reminds them that, once upon a time, they used to be young and able to do the sorts of things that narcissists cannot do on the weekend anymore."
"Narcissists hate being around young people because it reminds them that, once upon a time, they used to be young and able to do the sorts of things that narcissists cannot do on the weekend anymore."
er, ignoring the narcissism thing, which is bizarre (you want to hire narcissists, so better not hire old|ugly|disabled people!) your post seems to be arguing for the assumptions that the article is about: we can assume old people had to take shitty work in the past, therefore they are probably going to appear to be a poor candidate.
This completely ignores the evidence directly in front of us that all good engineers will one day start looking older and start having a lot more trouble finding job offers.
I don't really understand how you go directly from saying that it's unintentional and is "unreasonably harsh age-grading, coming from an inexperienced and privileged set of people who've never had to do grunt work" but then proceed to (try to) explain how it's perfectly logical that you can have a positive outlook of the future of your career, but actually you're going to have to take what you can get, which is the reason why "premature decline is far more common than it should be".
Maybe I'm missing the gist of your argument here? Are you suggesting we should be doing job interviews on a curve, excusing 20 years as a code monkey at some place you've never heard of because they probably had a mortgage? I don't know if that's your point, but it is definitely off base here: those 20 years might have created a middle-manager toady or they might have honed razor-sharp gut instincts and experience with relevant languages and tools. Either way, walking in with the assumption that "premature decline is far more common than it should be" means you're probably going to miss the truth of the matter, which is the whole point. No one is suggesting affirmative action for greybeards, they're saying that the kinds of things many in tech assume because a person has grey in their hair means that they don't get a fair shot, even when their experience is extensive and applicable.
This completely ignores the evidence directly in front of us that all good engineers will one day start looking older and start having a lot more trouble finding job offers.
I don't really understand how you go directly from saying that it's unintentional and is "unreasonably harsh age-grading, coming from an inexperienced and privileged set of people who've never had to do grunt work" but then proceed to (try to) explain how it's perfectly logical that you can have a positive outlook of the future of your career, but actually you're going to have to take what you can get, which is the reason why "premature decline is far more common than it should be".
Maybe I'm missing the gist of your argument here? Are you suggesting we should be doing job interviews on a curve, excusing 20 years as a code monkey at some place you've never heard of because they probably had a mortgage? I don't know if that's your point, but it is definitely off base here: those 20 years might have created a middle-manager toady or they might have honed razor-sharp gut instincts and experience with relevant languages and tools. Either way, walking in with the assumption that "premature decline is far more common than it should be" means you're probably going to miss the truth of the matter, which is the whole point. No one is suggesting affirmative action for greybeards, they're saying that the kinds of things many in tech assume because a person has grey in their hair means that they don't get a fair shot, even when their experience is extensive and applicable.
This article was focused more on the movie-villain version of ageism (Over 25! NO HIRE! MUHAHA!!) but the real-world version often goes something like, "look at this guy, he's like, 38! if he's applying for anything less than CEO he's obviously terribad!" That said, I also think the argument missed the mark.
Or he's decided that being CEO is cool and all, but he would rather code.
It's not about the money once you have 'enough'.
It's not about the money once you have 'enough'.
They are calling this "a secret"? - more like overt bigotry from what I have seen. Isn't Y-Combinator one of the worst offenders? From what I have read Paul Graham brags actually about his age discrimination.
Eventually, some enterprising law firm is going to make a bundle. The legal culture in SV (WSGR and their ilk) are not steeped in class-action suits, several folks are going to get their asses kicked from the legal defense, if nothing else.
This should have happened long ago, and from what I have heard, Y-Combinator would be the best place to start.
You're making serious accusations against an individual and a company based solely on things you have read about on the Internet or heard anecdotally.
Wake up. Discrimination is not cut and dry, law is not cut and dry, and reality is not cut and dry.
Wake up. Discrimination is not cut and dry, law is not cut and dry, and reality is not cut and dry.
I am not making any accusations against anyone - it is obvious that Paul Graham has an age bias - he says so all over the place, but there is no law against having a bias. Age discrimination is almost impossible to prove, but if it is being used in the decisions of who gets into Y-Combinator someone should look into it.
where has he said he has an age bias?
He does.
Has he said so in an essay? On a HN post? To YC founders in person?
See comment above. There was another interview or blog post where he talked about his preference for young people more extensively, but I can't find it. Do you happen to know how many people over 50 have been accepted into Y-Combinator?
I wonder how many people over 50 would apply? IIRC the seed capital they provide is probably small enough that a 50 year old would likely have that in their savings and possibly enough contacts/credit rating to get other funding directly.
The closest I could find was this: http://www.paulgraham.com/mit.html
But all he really says there is that younger founders have an advantage that they can live on less money.
The closest I could find was this: http://www.paulgraham.com/mit.html
But all he really says there is that younger founders have an advantage that they can live on less money.
You're thinking of someone else. Paul has corrected people here several times when they say something like, "I'd like to apply to YC but I'm X years old.". Usually his reply is approximately "We've funded several people ten years older than you.". I think the oldest YC funded founder is 50 something. So far.
Best comment of the whole damn thread.
I'm already shocked Google, Apple, etc, haven't been slammed with class-action suits for their overt anti-competitive hiring practices re: non-poaching, etc.
You can get sued for firing someone, but I'm pretty sure you can't get sued for declining to invest in a company (that would be very scary indeed.)
> but I'm pretty sure you can't get sued for declining to invest in a company
Try this for example: "Our VC firm does not invest in companies with black founders. We looked at the data, and companies with black-founders have a measurably lower ROI."
Are you still pretty sure?
Try this for example: "Our VC firm does not invest in companies with black founders. We looked at the data, and companies with black-founders have a measurably lower ROI."
Are you still pretty sure?
Yes. There are specific laws that punish hiring decisions allegedly made because of race, gender, etc. There are laws that require government entities to treat all citizens equally, regardless or race. There may be (I'm not a lawyer) specific laws that forbid discriminating walk-in customers in stores or passengers in transport services.
But, AFAIK, there are no laws that forbid having a principle of not ever buying (or investing) from companies run by black CEO's - it may (and should) be a PR disaster, but it's legal. There definitely are no laws that prohibit general discrimination for an unspecified purpose not specifically listed (such as hiring, etc).
If I have missed such a law, please do enlighten me.
As far as I know, I may pass a company directive that we'll only buy stuff from companies run by homosexual mormons born on friday the 13th; and that will be just as legal as those companies that have declared that they will only buy stuff from local companies. I may create an investment fund, stating that it will only invest in companies with Christian (or Islamic) values and it will be just as legal as creating an investment fund, stating that it will not deal with companies allegedly involved in bribery.
If I have missed such a law, please do enlighten me.
As far as I know, I may pass a company directive that we'll only buy stuff from companies run by homosexual mormons born on friday the 13th; and that will be just as legal as those companies that have declared that they will only buy stuff from local companies. I may create an investment fund, stating that it will only invest in companies with Christian (or Islamic) values and it will be just as legal as creating an investment fund, stating that it will not deal with companies allegedly involved in bribery.
If someone was dumb enough to say exactly that, they should be sued for outright stupidity and perhaps for discrimination. I suspect that in practice, "those companies have not been the right fit for our investment philosophy" is as close as you'd get, and that's hardly actionable, even if you strongly suspect that their thesis is as offensive as "we invest in white people".
Excellent point. I doubt very much they would ever get sued - they are too smart for that, but it doesn't mean that what they are doing there is right. Could someone be so kind as to tell me how many people over 50 have been admitted to Y-combinator? How many people over 40?
That doesn't matter. What matters is how many qualified people over 30, 40, 50, 60 have applied to Y Combinator, and then how many have been accepted, vs. how many qualified applied/accepted 0-18, 18-22, 22-25, 25-30.
I think the group who actually get discriminated against, if otherwise just as qualified, are 0-18. That's who I would discriminate against, based on US laws, contracts, etc.
We know from public YC companies that the majority are in their 20s, but there are a lot in their 30s, and several examples in 40+. What we don't know is 1) how many applied in each age group and 2) were they of differing quality other than age.
I'd be inclined to suspect YC gets a lot of the best 20-something entrepreneurs to apply, but doesn't yet get a large percentage of the qualified 35+ year old entrepreneurs to apply. I think that's for three main reasons:
1) a perception that YC is youth-focused
2) diversity of resources and other diversity for older entrepreneurs (IMO, a 25 year old who just did a $50mm exit from his second company has a lot more in common with a 45 year old who has done the same, than either have with a 22yo who has done nothing but college or a 45yo who has worked for the local government in IT his whole life)
3) people get trapped into mortgage/family/etc. and aren't willing to take 3 months off and move to the Bay Area to do YC, even if they think they're willing to do a startup (3 months in the bay area is far from the greatest hardship you'll face...)
I think the group who actually get discriminated against, if otherwise just as qualified, are 0-18. That's who I would discriminate against, based on US laws, contracts, etc.
We know from public YC companies that the majority are in their 20s, but there are a lot in their 30s, and several examples in 40+. What we don't know is 1) how many applied in each age group and 2) were they of differing quality other than age.
I'd be inclined to suspect YC gets a lot of the best 20-something entrepreneurs to apply, but doesn't yet get a large percentage of the qualified 35+ year old entrepreneurs to apply. I think that's for three main reasons:
1) a perception that YC is youth-focused
2) diversity of resources and other diversity for older entrepreneurs (IMO, a 25 year old who just did a $50mm exit from his second company has a lot more in common with a 45 year old who has done the same, than either have with a 22yo who has done nothing but college or a 45yo who has worked for the local government in IT his whole life)
3) people get trapped into mortgage/family/etc. and aren't willing to take 3 months off and move to the Bay Area to do YC, even if they think they're willing to do a startup (3 months in the bay area is far from the greatest hardship you'll face...)
Maybe a controversial thing to say, but I doubt illegal in the same way it's not illegal to decide you won't let people of a certain ethnicity into your home.
The thing is, Randy did get hired once he shaved his head and started dressing down.
This isn't ageism, it's a filter against older people who are unable to adapt themselves to the changing environment. It's like classic cars: no-one is going to buy a neglected rust bucket that hasn't been serviced since the 1960s. Yet if the car is loved and cared for it can be worth millions (http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/ferrari-250-GTO-sells-for...).
Startups.. the web.. the valley.. they all thrive on new ideas. On people who keep their mind open to new ideas. Older people who are both relevant and still have "that".. are rare. Very rare. But if you can find one, they're priceless.
This isn't ageism, it's a filter against older people who are unable to adapt themselves to the changing environment. It's like classic cars: no-one is going to buy a neglected rust bucket that hasn't been serviced since the 1960s. Yet if the car is loved and cared for it can be worth millions (http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/ferrari-250-GTO-sells-for...).
Startups.. the web.. the valley.. they all thrive on new ideas. On people who keep their mind open to new ideas. Older people who are both relevant and still have "that".. are rare. Very rare. But if you can find one, they're priceless.
It's not just about adaption, looking good/trendy is about first impressions and signaling that you'll fit in with the "cool" culture at a certain company. I've known young people who dressed badly not do well either, and I've often counseled them to make some effort with their appearance and it makes a huge difference, even very little things like buying shirts that fit or paying money for a real haircut. We'd love it to be a pure meritocracy, but at the end of the day what you look like matters to other humans.
What I'm hearing from many posters in these comments is my level of fashion-conciousness indicates how innovative I am. I think it's a big mistake to judge a candidate's aptitude for the work by how hip they look. This is the last industry I thought we'd have to face this kind of thing in.
Well, wait. I've always said this too: it shouldn't matter how I dress. But the truth is that dress is very frequently an indicator of how aware one is. It's a social consciousness that is sometimes reflected in other things (like being able to adapt to a new technology).
Look at this comic: http://xkcd.com/1139/ - the playground jerks call the guy a loser because he isn't playing the social game. They are right that he is "losing" the social playground game. He doesn't care, but that's kind of what these startups are looking for.
Look at this comic: http://xkcd.com/1139/ - the playground jerks call the guy a loser because he isn't playing the social game. They are right that he is "losing" the social playground game. He doesn't care, but that's kind of what these startups are looking for.
Exactly, it's an indicator.
At the CEO level, I'd argue that you must look for people who understand the value of understanding their target audience ("customer") and taking the low cost / low friction action required.
Or, put simply, spend a couple of hours and $200 on cloths to look the part.
What, exactly, do you think would happen to a 24 year old hotshot banker who goes to an interview at, say, Goldman Sachs wearing Bermuda shorts and a t-shirt?
At the CEO level, I'd argue that you must look for people who understand the value of understanding their target audience ("customer") and taking the low cost / low friction action required.
Or, put simply, spend a couple of hours and $200 on cloths to look the part.
What, exactly, do you think would happen to a 24 year old hotshot banker who goes to an interview at, say, Goldman Sachs wearing Bermuda shorts and a t-shirt?
> At the CEO level, I'd argue that you must look for people who understand the value of understanding their target audience ("customer") and taking the low cost / low friction action required.
> Or, put simply, spend a couple of hours and $200 on cloths to look the part.
Assembling a $200 wardrobe tailored to appeal to the innate biases of someone hiring based on the clothes you wear is not low cost, low friction, or even representative of many audiences for the kinds of software people write. Also, that you tie looking appropriate to spending a bunch of money on clothes is laughable and goes against startup culture in the first place (when you have little or no money, you mend and thrift your clothes).
> What, exactly, do you think would happen to a 24 year old hotshot banker who goes to an interview at, say, Goldman Sachs wearing Bermuda shorts and a t-shirt?
If your company is aspiring to the Goldman Sachs culture, I will never apply to or do business with it or you.
> Or, put simply, spend a couple of hours and $200 on cloths to look the part.
Assembling a $200 wardrobe tailored to appeal to the innate biases of someone hiring based on the clothes you wear is not low cost, low friction, or even representative of many audiences for the kinds of software people write. Also, that you tie looking appropriate to spending a bunch of money on clothes is laughable and goes against startup culture in the first place (when you have little or no money, you mend and thrift your clothes).
> What, exactly, do you think would happen to a 24 year old hotshot banker who goes to an interview at, say, Goldman Sachs wearing Bermuda shorts and a t-shirt?
If your company is aspiring to the Goldman Sachs culture, I will never apply to or do business with it or you.
> If your company is aspiring to the Goldman Sachs culture, I will never apply to or do business with it or you.
There are a lot of things to fault Goldman Sachs for, but they are a tremendously effective and efficient organization. Most startups should be so lucky to be so well-run.
There are a lot of things to fault Goldman Sachs for, but they are a tremendously effective and efficient organization. Most startups should be so lucky to be so well-run.
[deleted]
I'm not even that old, but cry me a river. My whole life I was told dress a certain way or you won't get hired. The world put up with it when it was old guys telling young guys they had to wear a suit. Now there's an older guy who says he can't get hired unless he dresses in jeans and sneakers. It's kind of funny but at least he's getting hired. Age discrimination against the young is still perfectly legal in the USA.
Are you seriously saying that keeping up with fashion is an indicator of being able to adapt to new tech?
They're not so different these days, especially in SV, I think. Apple, for one, has made itself on being a fashionable product. If one of a company's goals is to be fashionable, does it make sense to hire people who don't care about a core portion of the company's vision?
there's a correlation causation issue to consider.
jobs wore black-t-necks to be anti-fashion
ives is a designer, fan of colour etc.
people that make fasion != people that follow it (or: victims, slaves, etc)
jobs wore black-t-necks to be anti-fashion
ives is a designer, fan of colour etc.
people that make fasion != people that follow it (or: victims, slaves, etc)
[deleted]
> Look at this comic: http://xkcd.com/1139/ - the playground jerks call the guy a loser because he isn't playing the social game. They are right that he is "losing" the social playground game. He doesn't care, but that's kind of what these startups are looking for.
http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
I think rules are the same everywhere for management. The guy was going in for a CEO position one where he has to at least have the perception that he was in sync with the brand. Going even further, I think fitting in is appreciated everywhere, even in tech.
A couple of examples: Look at the whole anti-brogrammer movement: There were people conflating being fit, wearing polo shirts and dressing preppy with being obnoxious, sexist assholes. I am fairly certain that there were examples of such people but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who tries to be fit or dresses preppy is one. Personally, I don't like ironic graphic t-shirts and dressing in Cargo shorts and looking like a slob but that doesn't necessarily mean that I would go to a startup interview in a 3-piece suit. This is mainly because while I try to make an effort to dissociate the image you present with who you are, it doesn't necessarily mean that I should expect everyone around me to do that.
A couple of examples: Look at the whole anti-brogrammer movement: There were people conflating being fit, wearing polo shirts and dressing preppy with being obnoxious, sexist assholes. I am fairly certain that there were examples of such people but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who tries to be fit or dresses preppy is one. Personally, I don't like ironic graphic t-shirts and dressing in Cargo shorts and looking like a slob but that doesn't necessarily mean that I would go to a startup interview in a 3-piece suit. This is mainly because while I try to make an effort to dissociate the image you present with who you are, it doesn't necessarily mean that I should expect everyone around me to do that.
Bad example, that's a Ferrari GTO, it would sell for hundreds of thousands even if it was at the bottom of a lake.
And fashion means nothing, just that you read fashion blogs. The guys who invented the internet in the late 1960s wore 1950 dork clothes.
It doesn't matters.
And fashion means nothing, just that you read fashion blogs. The guys who invented the internet in the late 1960s wore 1950 dork clothes.
It doesn't matters.
Most guys haven't invented anything though, let alone the internet. Fashion (or some other triviality) sometimes ends up being the tie breaker, all else being (or rather seeming to be) equal.
I completely agree with the thesis of the article but I want to nitpick with the first few lines: I am not sure whether the converse/shaving your head off thing is helping is due to the perception of being more in tune with your coworkers or whether it is because of the person appearing younger.
When you get older, several things work against you to jump into SV culture:
- You are not as easily impressed by or eager to try new technologies. (many of which are new spins on old ideas you've seen before.)
- You fail to see the appeal of the types of technology younger people are using. Or, you see the switching costs as too high to move away from what you are using now.
- Your lack of ignorance leads you to (often correctly) identify that an idea will lead nowhere. The problem is sometimes you are wrong.
I think the best way to fight against ageism is to make an effort to retain an open mind and curiosity. Try new things, even if you think they are going not be worth your time. Try to see the novelty in things that may seem to be a rehash of old ideas. Realize that no matter how stupid an idea sounds, sometimes it's worth trying, because you can't always predict the future, no matter how much you've seen.
Just think of the number of people on HN who have posted about how they don't understand Facebook, Twitter, or shoot down some whiz bang new technology. I've done it sometimes myself. Engineers are naturally skeptical, but this skepticism can grow out of control. It's fine in moderation but there's a tendency for this type of perspective to grow with age naturally, and that can ultimately undermine your ability to recognize and execute on genuinely novel, good ideas.
If I could hire someone who had both extensive experience but did not have a chip on their shoulder and lived on the edge of the curve like a 20 year old I'd do it. But it's pretty hard to not have a chip on your shoulder in this industry after a decade or two, and it's hard to continue to adopt the latest technology and not just settle in at some point along the way.
- You are not as easily impressed by or eager to try new technologies. (many of which are new spins on old ideas you've seen before.)
- You fail to see the appeal of the types of technology younger people are using. Or, you see the switching costs as too high to move away from what you are using now.
- Your lack of ignorance leads you to (often correctly) identify that an idea will lead nowhere. The problem is sometimes you are wrong.
I think the best way to fight against ageism is to make an effort to retain an open mind and curiosity. Try new things, even if you think they are going not be worth your time. Try to see the novelty in things that may seem to be a rehash of old ideas. Realize that no matter how stupid an idea sounds, sometimes it's worth trying, because you can't always predict the future, no matter how much you've seen.
Just think of the number of people on HN who have posted about how they don't understand Facebook, Twitter, or shoot down some whiz bang new technology. I've done it sometimes myself. Engineers are naturally skeptical, but this skepticism can grow out of control. It's fine in moderation but there's a tendency for this type of perspective to grow with age naturally, and that can ultimately undermine your ability to recognize and execute on genuinely novel, good ideas.
If I could hire someone who had both extensive experience but did not have a chip on their shoulder and lived on the edge of the curve like a 20 year old I'd do it. But it's pretty hard to not have a chip on your shoulder in this industry after a decade or two, and it's hard to continue to adopt the latest technology and not just settle in at some point along the way.
I think the best way to fight against ageism is to make an effort to retain an open mind and curiosity.
The problem is that doesn't fight ageism. It panders to it.
Ageism is when you don't get treated fairly just because of your age - no matter how curious and open minded you may or may not be.
If somebody things I'm closed minded and incurious because I'm in my forties they are being ageist. They are the one with a problem. Simples.
You fight ageism by pointing out bigoted asshattery when you encounter it. You fight it by not staying quiet. You fight it by lobbying to make it illegal. You fight it by giving people concrete advice on how to deal with it in the workplace.
You don't fight it by trying extra hard to demonstrate that their bigotry doesn't apply to you. That's a coping strategy. Not a fighting strategy.
The problem is that doesn't fight ageism. It panders to it.
Ageism is when you don't get treated fairly just because of your age - no matter how curious and open minded you may or may not be.
If somebody things I'm closed minded and incurious because I'm in my forties they are being ageist. They are the one with a problem. Simples.
You fight ageism by pointing out bigoted asshattery when you encounter it. You fight it by not staying quiet. You fight it by lobbying to make it illegal. You fight it by giving people concrete advice on how to deal with it in the workplace.
You don't fight it by trying extra hard to demonstrate that their bigotry doesn't apply to you. That's a coping strategy. Not a fighting strategy.
I dunno if "pandering" is the word I'd use to describe those who intentionally take on an attitude of openness and curiosity.
The fact is, most of the older people I know (my parents, grandparents, etc) still listen to the music they were listening to at age 25. Many of them (such as my aunt) are still working at jobs that use technologies they learned 30 years ago. It's not because they are incapable of evolving. I think it is because they never made it a point to sharpen their openness & curiosity.
If I saw a 55 yo engineer with a Github portfolio of Ruby and Python projects, hell yes I would interview that candidate. But the reality is that when I've interviewed older candidates in the past, they are in general more likely to be behind the curve when it comes to speaking the language of the latest tech and developments. My hunch is that complacency breeds this attitude. It is hard to constantly learn new tech for 40+ years, because so much of the learning process is about being wrong repeatedly.
My solution personally is to try to constantly force myself to understand and appreciate the zeitgeist of music, programming, and design as I age. In terms of personal empowerment, it seems to me one of the most sensible routes to fight ageism.
Calling out others who promote ageism is good too, but it doesn't directly address the fact that someday we will all be old, and we'll need an actionable strategy to succeed in spite of that.
The fact is, most of the older people I know (my parents, grandparents, etc) still listen to the music they were listening to at age 25. Many of them (such as my aunt) are still working at jobs that use technologies they learned 30 years ago. It's not because they are incapable of evolving. I think it is because they never made it a point to sharpen their openness & curiosity.
If I saw a 55 yo engineer with a Github portfolio of Ruby and Python projects, hell yes I would interview that candidate. But the reality is that when I've interviewed older candidates in the past, they are in general more likely to be behind the curve when it comes to speaking the language of the latest tech and developments. My hunch is that complacency breeds this attitude. It is hard to constantly learn new tech for 40+ years, because so much of the learning process is about being wrong repeatedly.
My solution personally is to try to constantly force myself to understand and appreciate the zeitgeist of music, programming, and design as I age. In terms of personal empowerment, it seems to me one of the most sensible routes to fight ageism.
Calling out others who promote ageism is good too, but it doesn't directly address the fact that someday we will all be old, and we'll need an actionable strategy to succeed in spite of that.
I dunno if "pandering" is the word I'd use to describe those who intentionally take on an attitude of openness and curiosity.
Intentionally taking on an attitude of openness and curiosity is, of course, a good thing at any age. I read (possibly misread) it in this context as meaning that you have to demonstrate this in some more extreme way if you're old. That, to me, is pandering to bigotry.
The fact is, most of the older people I know (my parents, grandparents, etc) still listen to the music they were listening to at age 25. Many of them (such as my aunt) are still working at jobs that use technologies they learned 30 years ago. It's not because they are incapable of evolving. I think it is because they never made it a point to sharpen their openness & curiosity.
I know people like that. My experience has been though that those people are just as inflexible in their 20s as they are in their 50s. It's just that it's trickier to spot - because they've been stuck for a shorter period of time.
If you're in your twenties and look around your peers now I bet you'll find some folk who are still really into the same bands they were into when they were in their teens. They'll still be into those bands in 30 years time.
My solution personally is to try to constantly force myself to understand and appreciate the zeitgeist of music, programming, and design as I age. In terms of personal empowerment, it seems to me one of the most sensible routes to fight ageism.
That's a fantastic approach to living an interesting and fulfilling life.
It's a lousy strategy to fight ageism.
Ageism is what others do to you. It's bigotry. It's not looking at you because of your age, not because of how open minded (or not) you are.
Being open minded doesn't help you since the person on the other side of the table doesn't see an open minded person. They see an old one. And they assume.
Intentionally taking on an attitude of openness and curiosity is, of course, a good thing at any age. I read (possibly misread) it in this context as meaning that you have to demonstrate this in some more extreme way if you're old. That, to me, is pandering to bigotry.
The fact is, most of the older people I know (my parents, grandparents, etc) still listen to the music they were listening to at age 25. Many of them (such as my aunt) are still working at jobs that use technologies they learned 30 years ago. It's not because they are incapable of evolving. I think it is because they never made it a point to sharpen their openness & curiosity.
I know people like that. My experience has been though that those people are just as inflexible in their 20s as they are in their 50s. It's just that it's trickier to spot - because they've been stuck for a shorter period of time.
If you're in your twenties and look around your peers now I bet you'll find some folk who are still really into the same bands they were into when they were in their teens. They'll still be into those bands in 30 years time.
My solution personally is to try to constantly force myself to understand and appreciate the zeitgeist of music, programming, and design as I age. In terms of personal empowerment, it seems to me one of the most sensible routes to fight ageism.
That's a fantastic approach to living an interesting and fulfilling life.
It's a lousy strategy to fight ageism.
Ageism is what others do to you. It's bigotry. It's not looking at you because of your age, not because of how open minded (or not) you are.
Being open minded doesn't help you since the person on the other side of the table doesn't see an open minded person. They see an old one. And they assume.
Yeah sorry I worded that poorly. My point is that I'd guess most ageism is probably imaginary and is just older people not being hired by falling into the traps I mentioned above. I'm pretty skeptical that many startup entrepreneurs have a "if you're over 40 we don't want to talk to you policy" but instead decide based on 50 year olds coming into their door telling them in their interview how relational databases were figured out in the 70's and NoSQL is a fad. (Not that they're wrong :))
I'd guess most ageism is probably imaginary
Then you'd guess wrong. Take it from somebody in their forties - and I'm fortunate enough to be mistaken for being in my 30s quite often (the fat hides the wrinkles ;-)
I'm pretty skeptical that many startup entrepreneurs have a "if you're over 40 we don't want to talk to you policy" but instead decide based on 50 year olds coming into their door telling them in their interview how relational databases were figured out in the 70's
And there is the problem in a nutshell. That is ageism.
The assumption is that they're saying it because they are old. Not because their an idiot (or not ;-). It's http://xkcd.com/385/ - but for age not sex.
There are older developers who suck. But it's not because they're old. It's because they suck.
Then you'd guess wrong. Take it from somebody in their forties - and I'm fortunate enough to be mistaken for being in my 30s quite often (the fat hides the wrinkles ;-)
I'm pretty skeptical that many startup entrepreneurs have a "if you're over 40 we don't want to talk to you policy" but instead decide based on 50 year olds coming into their door telling them in their interview how relational databases were figured out in the 70's
And there is the problem in a nutshell. That is ageism.
The assumption is that they're saying it because they are old. Not because their an idiot (or not ;-). It's http://xkcd.com/385/ - but for age not sex.
There are older developers who suck. But it's not because they're old. It's because they suck.
Huh? How is that ageism? I wouldn't say it's a matter of sucking or not sucking. It's a matter of perspective and sometimes inexperience plays to your benefit when doing a startup. Experienced engineers can identify known unknowns. Inexperienced ones have many more unknown unknowns. Ignorance hurts you in most situations in life, but in the case of startups, a little ignorance is often what it takes to try problems that everyone else has ignored because they thought they were "solved."
Okay - I seem to have misread you. Sorry. When you said:
"I'm pretty skeptical that many startup entrepreneurs have a "if you're over 40 we don't want to talk to you policy" but instead decide based on 50 year olds coming into their door telling them in their interview how relational databases were figured out in the 70's"
I read it as roughly: "Young entrepreneurs don't have a <40 policy. They're making a rational decision not to hire old people after encountering lots of old people telling them things they think are incorrect because of their age.". Which, I think, we both agree is dumb logic.
[edit; Actually said "sorry" ;-)]
"I'm pretty skeptical that many startup entrepreneurs have a "if you're over 40 we don't want to talk to you policy" but instead decide based on 50 year olds coming into their door telling them in their interview how relational databases were figured out in the 70's"
I read it as roughly: "Young entrepreneurs don't have a <40 policy. They're making a rational decision not to hire old people after encountering lots of old people telling them things they think are incorrect because of their age.". Which, I think, we both agree is dumb logic.
[edit; Actually said "sorry" ;-)]
Yeah I was more pointing out that the things touched upon in an interview environment for inexperienced and experienced engineers can be wildly different. For inexperienced engineers, the interview can be spent talking about "new" technology, "new" ideas, and so on with excitement (despite the fact these things might altogether not be new or may be flawed.) For experienced engineers, at least in my experience, interviews tend to be more sobering and focused on blowing holes in ideas and talking about how they were bit by such-and-such an issue.
It's a hard balance. In the long haul, you often want people who are careful and diligent and have experience that tempers their urge to jump into things too quickly. But, this type of attitude can actually hurt in startups. In an interview where the particular 3 or 4 things you touch upon are extrapolated (correctly or not) to be the main self-identifying traits of how you work and how you think about problems, if you tell even just one story about superior databases from the 70's or seem to be overly-pedantic when it comes to blowing holes in ideas this can be a 'red flag.'
In a startup environment, I'd rather have the engineer who I think will fall in a hole 3 times and figure out a solution eventually than another who I think will think too hard and fall in one in 3x the time due to their fear built up from previous failures. In an interview, if I am spending my time with the person mostly talking about things that have gone wrong and how everything new is old, I will worry they will be too paralyzed to just hack on and break things -- and this type of focus, while obviously invaluable in many situations, tends to come from more experienced engineers since they have seen more shit go wrong.
It's a hard balance. In the long haul, you often want people who are careful and diligent and have experience that tempers their urge to jump into things too quickly. But, this type of attitude can actually hurt in startups. In an interview where the particular 3 or 4 things you touch upon are extrapolated (correctly or not) to be the main self-identifying traits of how you work and how you think about problems, if you tell even just one story about superior databases from the 70's or seem to be overly-pedantic when it comes to blowing holes in ideas this can be a 'red flag.'
In a startup environment, I'd rather have the engineer who I think will fall in a hole 3 times and figure out a solution eventually than another who I think will think too hard and fall in one in 3x the time due to their fear built up from previous failures. In an interview, if I am spending my time with the person mostly talking about things that have gone wrong and how everything new is old, I will worry they will be too paralyzed to just hack on and break things -- and this type of focus, while obviously invaluable in many situations, tends to come from more experienced engineers since they have seen more shit go wrong.
> Engineers are naturally skeptical, but this skepticism can grow out of control.
You've hit on one of the most important quality filters here. If someone is really, deeply intelligent, one of their analysis tasks will include a diligent try at making your idea work. The weirder your idea, the more curious about it they will be.
You've hit on one of the most important quality filters here. If someone is really, deeply intelligent, one of their analysis tasks will include a diligent try at making your idea work. The weirder your idea, the more curious about it they will be.
As a person who doesn't really believe in the innately "deeply intelligent", I'll add that this is a skill that can be practiced, like any other, and the more curiosity you cultivate and act upon, the more you'll learn and get better at learning. You'll be much more pleasant to be around (instead of being known as a knee-jerk critic) and before you know it, they skills and insight you gain may have people calling you "deeply intelligent" :)
Deeply intelligent is as deeply intelligent does.
So my question is: why is this industry so prone to chips on shoulders? Might there not be a better way?
My personal read: there are lots of people that didn't "fit in" as a teen/young adult. Instead of learning that excluding people for being different is ignorant they learned that one day they would be the one doing the maltreatment, at which point it would be totally cool.
I think part of the reason is because in software engineering there are several "big problems" that come up time and time again, but in different flavors. For example, when AJAX was the buzzword of the day, there were many engineers I knew who worked during the 90's cynically complaining about how we were just revisiting the "thin vs thick client" issue once again (much like their 'ancestors' felt like they were revisiting the "dumb vs smart terminal" debate in the 80s.)
The problem is when these problems re-appear, problems that you personally grappled with for many years, it's easy to just want to throw up your hands in frustration because you thought the issue was settled. But of course, in reality its not about the issue being settled or not, it's about the capability of technology evolving and macroscopic design patterns falling in and out of favor due to the particular tradeoffs available with the state-of-the-art. But it's hard to see this objectively when you had a lot of emotional investment into any problem, developed some expertise, and see your entire way of solving problems being thrown out for what you perceive as a fad.
A contemporary example that I've mentioned already is the recent abandonment of the relational model/ACID in databases. A cynic will tell you the people doing this are stupid because it's an inferior solution. But they fail to mention the reason people are doing this: it's because the relational technology has not caught up with the scalability requirements of many problems faced by engineers today. An experienced engineer with the right attitude can have an excellent perspective and hedge their technology bets accordingly: the people deploying NoSQL are not stupid, they are just getting their jobs done. But at the same time, this too shall pass, since the relational model and ACID are fundamentally good ideas, and eventually someone will swing the pendulum back that way once other problems are solved. So, for the experienced engineer who takes a longer view, certain types of NoSQL databases can serve a role but are likely going to be considered a transitional technology and systems should be architected accordingly. The inexperienced engineer will not recognize this and will go all-in with NoSQL and fall right into the traps that relational modelling and ACID are designed to solve. Lo and behold: Google Spanner paper is published -- but we're not on the other side of this cycle yet until this tech is commoditized.
This tendency of cynicism is particularly worsened because engineers are naturally repulsed by the idea of reinventing the wheel, particularly a wheel as giant as these "big problems I thought we solved already." It's also worsened by the fact that within any new technology cycle, there is often more noise than signal, and so it's easy to latch on to the noise as evidence that there is no signal if you're biased to believing it's all noise. It's also much easier to tell yourself that there is no new innovation happening, it's all noise, when the people building the new stuff are all younger than you and many seem to be unaware of history.
The problem is when these problems re-appear, problems that you personally grappled with for many years, it's easy to just want to throw up your hands in frustration because you thought the issue was settled. But of course, in reality its not about the issue being settled or not, it's about the capability of technology evolving and macroscopic design patterns falling in and out of favor due to the particular tradeoffs available with the state-of-the-art. But it's hard to see this objectively when you had a lot of emotional investment into any problem, developed some expertise, and see your entire way of solving problems being thrown out for what you perceive as a fad.
A contemporary example that I've mentioned already is the recent abandonment of the relational model/ACID in databases. A cynic will tell you the people doing this are stupid because it's an inferior solution. But they fail to mention the reason people are doing this: it's because the relational technology has not caught up with the scalability requirements of many problems faced by engineers today. An experienced engineer with the right attitude can have an excellent perspective and hedge their technology bets accordingly: the people deploying NoSQL are not stupid, they are just getting their jobs done. But at the same time, this too shall pass, since the relational model and ACID are fundamentally good ideas, and eventually someone will swing the pendulum back that way once other problems are solved. So, for the experienced engineer who takes a longer view, certain types of NoSQL databases can serve a role but are likely going to be considered a transitional technology and systems should be architected accordingly. The inexperienced engineer will not recognize this and will go all-in with NoSQL and fall right into the traps that relational modelling and ACID are designed to solve. Lo and behold: Google Spanner paper is published -- but we're not on the other side of this cycle yet until this tech is commoditized.
This tendency of cynicism is particularly worsened because engineers are naturally repulsed by the idea of reinventing the wheel, particularly a wheel as giant as these "big problems I thought we solved already." It's also worsened by the fact that within any new technology cycle, there is often more noise than signal, and so it's easy to latch on to the noise as evidence that there is no signal if you're biased to believing it's all noise. It's also much easier to tell yourself that there is no new innovation happening, it's all noise, when the people building the new stuff are all younger than you and many seem to be unaware of history.
> Just think of the number of people on HN who have posted about how they don't understand Facebook, Twitter, or shoot down some whiz bang new technology. I've done it sometimes myself. Engineers are naturally skeptical, but this skepticism can grow out of control. It's fine in moderation but there's a tendency for this type of perspective to grow with age naturally, and that can ultimately undermine your ability to recognize and execute on genuinely novel, good ideas.
This is so very true. I was pretty young when twitter first came but remember being incredibly skeptical about the idea. Although to be frank, the way twitter is being used to consume information (as a news feed) was not how it was being thought of then. However, the greater point still remains: If you are skeptical of nascent ideas, you will never let them grow or become mature.
This is so very true. I was pretty young when twitter first came but remember being incredibly skeptical about the idea. Although to be frank, the way twitter is being used to consume information (as a news feed) was not how it was being thought of then. However, the greater point still remains: If you are skeptical of nascent ideas, you will never let them grow or become mature.
Older people are probably better at design than we are.
Would a 60 year old really want to work 18 hour days with a bunch of 20-somethings crammed into a San Francisco studio converted office?
A Silicon Valley startup is just one type, but there are infinite businesses out there to start and grow at any age in your life.
A Silicon Valley startup is just one type, but there are infinite businesses out there to start and grow at any age in your life.
Would a 60 year old really want to work 18 hour days with a bunch of 20-somethings crammed into a San Francisco studio converted office?
Nope.. the 60 year old would want them to succeed rather than working 18 hours a day ;-)
Nope.. the 60 year old would want them to succeed rather than working 18 hours a day ;-)
Never change, California. Never change.
Even YC application asks for age! This is no secret. If you're not an investor past your mid 30s you are pretty much over in the valley.
Hollywood is biased, too. At least it's honest about it.
Moviegoers are biased, and Hollywood wants to create products which sell. The people behind the cameras often are old even if the female stars on screen are barely out of high school. If I see ugly shirts in a store year after year, I don't blame the fashion house behind them, I blame the people who keep buying them.
[deleted]
Silicon Valley has got to be crawling with older, talented-as-hell developers. People (or at least some people) remain awesome with age. I'd hire 'em.
Does the cost of housing in the Bay Area coupled with older people's need to provide bedrooms for their children cause them to move to other parts of the country even if they've spent their 20's in The Valley?
It's interesting to compare with other professions.
I was out for drinks recently with some people who were programmers as well as others some of whom were doctors.
The mean age was probably about 27. A 27 year old developer is a grizzled vet whereas a 27 year old doctor is considered a noob at the start of their career.
I was out for drinks recently with some people who were programmers as well as others some of whom were doctors.
The mean age was probably about 27. A 27 year old developer is a grizzled vet whereas a 27 year old doctor is considered a noob at the start of their career.
The 27 year old developers probably only thought they were grizzled veterans.
The flip side is that you can out-compete by hiring the underpriced developers with experience.
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, hiring for experience doesn't make as much sense if your company is the next iteration on mobile/social with an uncertain business plan.
In the B2B/enterprise space this makes more sense, and anecdotally I've heard of great results from hiring people over 40 that can crank out tons of high-quality code while working sane hours.
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, hiring for experience doesn't make as much sense if your company is the next iteration on mobile/social with an uncertain business plan.
In the B2B/enterprise space this makes more sense, and anecdotally I've heard of great results from hiring people over 40 that can crank out tons of high-quality code while working sane hours.
I have heard of this but I had assumed that this had to do with younger people being willing to put into incredibily long hacking sessions; as people get older they would not have to time or energy to do that.
Tough topic. Experience vs. Youth.
Does bias exist? Absolutely.
I often tell people that being an engineer in certain fields (like software) can be very much like being a supermodel. Not one of them will reach fifty and stay in the Victoria's Secret catalog. In fact, when it comes to VS, 30-something and you are pushing it.
Is this wise? (back to CS now, not VS). Nope. People should be hired based on what they are able to do. What they can contribute to the company's mission. Often-times a more experienced developer just knows the path to a solution, if I may say, instinctively. And, yes, it is about making a bunch of mistakes and learning from them.
This, in my eyes at least, is no different than gender discrimination which also exists in CS.
Does bias exist? Absolutely.
I often tell people that being an engineer in certain fields (like software) can be very much like being a supermodel. Not one of them will reach fifty and stay in the Victoria's Secret catalog. In fact, when it comes to VS, 30-something and you are pushing it.
Is this wise? (back to CS now, not VS). Nope. People should be hired based on what they are able to do. What they can contribute to the company's mission. Often-times a more experienced developer just knows the path to a solution, if I may say, instinctively. And, yes, it is about making a bunch of mistakes and learning from them.
This, in my eyes at least, is no different than gender discrimination which also exists in CS.
There are two countervailing trends here: one is the increasing level of experience and the other is the decreasing level of hipness (hear me out, please). As an older engineer (early 40's), I speak from experience.
When I was young, I thought my designs were excellent, because they were the best things I had done so far. I was able to look around at amazing code (NT kernel, for example; open source was much less prevalent back then) so I realized there was a continuum of excellence. After five years, I looked back as some of my earlier code and it looked bad. I did the same five years later and had a similar experience. After that, improvement came by degrees and was more related to breadth of experience in different domains. So it's clear to me that "older" people, in my profession, at least, are usually more capable than a younger person at this particular skill.
That said, there is the "hipness" factor, for lack of a better word, and it's very real. Older people tend to get set in their ways and do what they do. If they like watching TV, they'll keep up with their favorite shows. If they like sports, they'll keep up with their teams. They are unlikely to know the hottest bands or Internet memes. They just don't keep up with current culture, which happens to be largely youth culture. They might like their iPhone or Android and know how to use it. But the fact is, that most older people merely use technology. They don't bury themselves in it every day. So when they talk to someone younger about culture or technology, they seem out of touch.
As someone who follows technology, it's pretty lonely in my cohort. There's literally nothing to talk about in the area that holds a large part of my interest.
I think the people under consideration here are biasing against the experience factor in favor of the hipness factor because it's just so apparent. It literally takes a couple of minutes of conversation before determining that the older person is "clueless".
If a person want's to work in technology (e.g., in a Bay Area startup) and they don't keep up with technology and/or culture, they are going to have a hard time.
When I was young, I thought my designs were excellent, because they were the best things I had done so far. I was able to look around at amazing code (NT kernel, for example; open source was much less prevalent back then) so I realized there was a continuum of excellence. After five years, I looked back as some of my earlier code and it looked bad. I did the same five years later and had a similar experience. After that, improvement came by degrees and was more related to breadth of experience in different domains. So it's clear to me that "older" people, in my profession, at least, are usually more capable than a younger person at this particular skill.
That said, there is the "hipness" factor, for lack of a better word, and it's very real. Older people tend to get set in their ways and do what they do. If they like watching TV, they'll keep up with their favorite shows. If they like sports, they'll keep up with their teams. They are unlikely to know the hottest bands or Internet memes. They just don't keep up with current culture, which happens to be largely youth culture. They might like their iPhone or Android and know how to use it. But the fact is, that most older people merely use technology. They don't bury themselves in it every day. So when they talk to someone younger about culture or technology, they seem out of touch.
As someone who follows technology, it's pretty lonely in my cohort. There's literally nothing to talk about in the area that holds a large part of my interest.
I think the people under consideration here are biasing against the experience factor in favor of the hipness factor because it's just so apparent. It literally takes a couple of minutes of conversation before determining that the older person is "clueless".
If a person want's to work in technology (e.g., in a Bay Area startup) and they don't keep up with technology and/or culture, they are going to have a hard time.
Bay Area technology startups are notoriously hard for just about anybody! Perhaps older people are just becoming more normal and balanced.
Thankfully, I have not encountered this problem yet :-)
Thankfully, I have not encountered this problem yet :-)
I've been telling people this for years. It needs to be cut out of the SV culture because if not most of us young guys (27 here) will be suffering from it on the backend of our careers.
Y'know. In a perverted sort of way the bogus assumptions about age the OP talks about, further demonstrated in some of the comments here, actually cheer me up.
More than occasionally I've found an advantage in being underestimated and then over delivering ;-)
More than occasionally I've found an advantage in being underestimated and then over delivering ;-)
I think there's a fundamental divide between people who became adults before the internet existed in the modern form (circa 1995 or so), and after.
I also think that there is effectively another break point at the advent of the smart phone (circa 2007) - people who become adults after smart phones were commonplace have an entirely different worldview.
I think that if your focus is narrowly on facility with technology at hand, ageism is a natural consequence.
I also happen to think that's a bad idea - a diversity of viewpoints is a goal to be pursued in and of itself.
I also think that there is effectively another break point at the advent of the smart phone (circa 2007) - people who become adults after smart phones were commonplace have an entirely different worldview.
I think that if your focus is narrowly on facility with technology at hand, ageism is a natural consequence.
I also happen to think that's a bad idea - a diversity of viewpoints is a goal to be pursued in and of itself.
> people who become adults after smart phones were commonplace have an entirely different worldview.
Care to elaborate?
Care to elaborate?
As an example: It's entirely possible that they've never been lost. With a gps-enabled smartphone and mapping, that whole concept goes away.
Anecdotally, I find myself now to be lost more often than prior to. Before GPS/Mapping on smartphones became common place, I would acquaint myself very well with where I was going, whereas now I'm much more care free about it--but on the off chance my destination has no signal, or the phone's battery dies on me, I'm much more screwed.
I bet many of these hiring managers don't really know what they're doing, so they're doing what everyone else is doing. This protects them from looking stupid, which many people fear more than actual failure. Some of these businesses will succeed but in general failure to get hired by someone who doesn't know what they are doing is, for the truly qualified, a good outcome.
I doubt that truly qualified people are being turned away for age. I doubt that really capable companies are that hung up on age. I do believe that there is discrimination among _under_ qualified people. Given the importance of learning experiences and networking and luck, this is probably a serious disadvantage to older under-qualified people. It certainly isn't fair. But anyone who is under-qualified really should think more about making themselves more qualified than looking around for someone to make things fair.
(That needn't be extended to race or gender discrimination law. Those are targeting structural disadvantages thought to be outside the control of the discriminated, e.g. they lack the same opportunity to improve their own qualifications. And they are often intended to make it more clear that the economy offers opportunities to all comers, in the face of a variety of perceptions. Whether you agree with those arguments or not, I don't see how they apply to people getting older.)
I doubt that truly qualified people are being turned away for age. I doubt that really capable companies are that hung up on age. I do believe that there is discrimination among _under_ qualified people. Given the importance of learning experiences and networking and luck, this is probably a serious disadvantage to older under-qualified people. It certainly isn't fair. But anyone who is under-qualified really should think more about making themselves more qualified than looking around for someone to make things fair.
(That needn't be extended to race or gender discrimination law. Those are targeting structural disadvantages thought to be outside the control of the discriminated, e.g. they lack the same opportunity to improve their own qualifications. And they are often intended to make it more clear that the economy offers opportunities to all comers, in the face of a variety of perceptions. Whether you agree with those arguments or not, I don't see how they apply to people getting older.)
I doubt that truly qualified people are being turned away for age. I doubt that really capable companies are that hung up on age.
I don't. Not even a little bit.
I saw it fifteen years ago when I was able to snap up amazingly talented developers that were piteously grateful for the opportunity after being turned down for similar positions elsewhere due to their age.
I see it now where every decent developer I know past 35 I've discussed it with has some variation of the "I'm not ageist - it's just that old developers are inflexible blah blah etc." story to tell and are noticing it becoming more of a problem as the years go by.
Saw it earlier this week when a conversation with a potential client completely derailed after they found out I was 42.
This shit happens all the time.
I don't. Not even a little bit.
I saw it fifteen years ago when I was able to snap up amazingly talented developers that were piteously grateful for the opportunity after being turned down for similar positions elsewhere due to their age.
I see it now where every decent developer I know past 35 I've discussed it with has some variation of the "I'm not ageist - it's just that old developers are inflexible blah blah etc." story to tell and are noticing it becoming more of a problem as the years go by.
Saw it earlier this week when a conversation with a potential client completely derailed after they found out I was 42.
This shit happens all the time.
I think this bias stems from the perception that people who are older are more established in life and their ability to support themselves and possibly their family is not dependent on the success or failure of the company.
I think the model that most people, including investors, see when they picture early stage start-ups is a small team that is so connected to the success of the company that they are willing to work themselves to unhealthy lengths if need be to succeed. That image is often associated with young recent grads or drop outs because they have student debts, are less likely to be able to find another job, and don't have any substantial savings to fall back on if the company goes under.
On some level this does make sense, if you are relying on this company succeeding to be able to earn a living then you probably want to be looking at the guy next to you and see a guy in the same boat. However it fails to take into account the experience or expertise that may be brought into the company by someone who is older and has proven the ability to succeed in this industry, which may lead to the success that will earn everyone in the company a living.
I think the model that most people, including investors, see when they picture early stage start-ups is a small team that is so connected to the success of the company that they are willing to work themselves to unhealthy lengths if need be to succeed. That image is often associated with young recent grads or drop outs because they have student debts, are less likely to be able to find another job, and don't have any substantial savings to fall back on if the company goes under.
On some level this does make sense, if you are relying on this company succeeding to be able to earn a living then you probably want to be looking at the guy next to you and see a guy in the same boat. However it fails to take into account the experience or expertise that may be brought into the company by someone who is older and has proven the ability to succeed in this industry, which may lead to the success that will earn everyone in the company a living.
Steve Jobs was 56. Nuff said.
As Silicon Valley matures, I think age bias will become less prevalent. I think there will be an inflection point where novelty is going to have to give way to quality. Facebook is illustrative. Facebook is exactly what you'd expect to get if you hired a bunch of recent college graduates to build something: creative, but otherwise utter crap. It's not what you would get if you hired a team of seasoned professionals to build a product with well-defined requirements. At some point, I think in the near future, you'll see Facebook (and the other companies like it) transition from the former into the latter.
It's a secret?
It's not exactly an "age" bias, it's a bias against people that aren't like them.
If I was hiring a CEO, someone who would be my boss, I'm definitely going to pick someone that seems like a person I could get along with. If a guy walks into the interview with a suit on and I'm wearing jeans and a hoodie, it could be a sign that we aren't going to get along all that well.
If the old guy came in and seemed like he could relate to me though, I wouldn't have a problem at all hiring him.
If I was hiring a CEO, someone who would be my boss, I'm definitely going to pick someone that seems like a person I could get along with. If a guy walks into the interview with a suit on and I'm wearing jeans and a hoodie, it could be a sign that we aren't going to get along all that well.
If the old guy came in and seemed like he could relate to me though, I wouldn't have a problem at all hiring him.
The results of this are blatantly clear when you view any company's "what's it like to work here". Video. It's embarrassing to see companies trying to recruit and having their prejudices on full display. what is worse, is they are not smart enough to even realize that they made a video of 30 white male 24 year olds.
To be fair, when I'm 40 I can't imagine still wanting to work 12+ hours a day. I'd like to see my family. This alone makes me feel like the age bias is caused more by people realizing the work won't work with their goals. The article itself seems a bit off since it doesn't deal with data so much as a single anecdote.
When I'm 40, I hope I have my life structured so I can work 12+ hours a day -- enough resources to automate or outsource the tasks I don't enjoy, no need to commute, etc.
A forty year old has an inclination for success and is therefore suited best for companies in the growth phase.
Twenty year olds seem to be naive enough to go for the impossible.
Or at least that's the mass perception. I think this also might be the reason for this pseudo-agism. (of course Elon Musk if the perfect counter example)
I equate 20 vs. 40 with Entrepreneur vs. MBA. Same perceptions, similar stereotypes, same utility.
That said, I love it when a person 20 years older than me actively guides my inclination towards "big" without stifling it, regarding it as idiotic, or being indifferent to it. I LOVE partnering up with older folks - they are professional in the true sense of the word - they can do what they do even when they are having a bad day. And they like partnering withe me because, I think, in me they see themselves when they were this old. It's amazing how much you can learn from people who've been there, done that!
Twenty year olds seem to be naive enough to go for the impossible.
Or at least that's the mass perception. I think this also might be the reason for this pseudo-agism. (of course Elon Musk if the perfect counter example)
I equate 20 vs. 40 with Entrepreneur vs. MBA. Same perceptions, similar stereotypes, same utility.
That said, I love it when a person 20 years older than me actively guides my inclination towards "big" without stifling it, regarding it as idiotic, or being indifferent to it. I LOVE partnering up with older folks - they are professional in the true sense of the word - they can do what they do even when they are having a bad day. And they like partnering withe me because, I think, in me they see themselves when they were this old. It's amazing how much you can learn from people who've been there, done that!
[deleted]
[deleted]
When I started in IT I found that it had alot of skilled people, though the bias was against younger people. As I grew older I saw the levels of talent drop and the age lower with a bias towards younger people. The real crux is not the ability to do the job but the HR cock-blocking of anybody who has more skills than the job at hand, which is in general older people. This and the mentality of dumbing down wages also bias towards getting younger people in.
The whole situation has now got to the stage that companies shun talent if it is over a certain age over getting somebody younger for a cheaper price. They then find it hard to find somebody with the skillset who will take the job for the wage they offer and then cry skill shortage.
There are exceptions, as with any rule but you will notice alot of talented mid-life IT professionals changing career just becasue they are sick of the office politics.
I have worked with old and young managers, both good and bad but the real difference was the good ones knew or had done the job they are managing and the ones not so good had as much IT skill as most school leavers but are great at dealing with HR and in that HR love them.
Only real way is to start your own company, your own rules and with that age is what you make it.
The whole situation has now got to the stage that companies shun talent if it is over a certain age over getting somebody younger for a cheaper price. They then find it hard to find somebody with the skillset who will take the job for the wage they offer and then cry skill shortage.
There are exceptions, as with any rule but you will notice alot of talented mid-life IT professionals changing career just becasue they are sick of the office politics.
I have worked with old and young managers, both good and bad but the real difference was the good ones knew or had done the job they are managing and the ones not so good had as much IT skill as most school leavers but are great at dealing with HR and in that HR love them.
Only real way is to start your own company, your own rules and with that age is what you make it.
How much of this is age bias, and how much of this is looking for the likely candidate to work for no money for 80 hours a week like this might turn into something huge?
OK Ok, I will bow to the pressure and shave my head if I get offered a $350K + options CEO spot. There it is, you win, ageist SV founders!
I find it amusing that today I took 14 pages of code from a 20-something developer and reduced to it to a single query and a one line function.
A couple of years ago I was eighteen, and I needed a job. So I went to a grocery shop and asked if they were hiring, and I got the reply, "We only hire 15 year olds."
What I really want to know is whether this is a recent (last 15 years -- e.g. the internet boom years) phenomenon or whether "Silicon Valley" has been this way since, say, the 70's.
If things have changed, then why?
If things have changed, then why?
I'm not sure why it should be a "dirty secret" that the tech world is predominantly driven by younger people who may at times be wont to push older people aside as suits their needs. Welcome to our capacity to be jerks if we indulge ourselves in that direction, as many will. It works the other way too, as all too many younger people can attest as they have occasionally been treated like dirt by those who are older.
Is this good or fair when it does happen? No.
Is it illegal? Sometimes, but making formal proof is daunting at best and usually not possible.
Thus, it comes down to this: treat others as you yourself would want to be treated. If a workplace reflects that ethic, it will be a place where old and young alike will want to work and where older workers will receive their due as befits their experience, skills, and performance, good or bad; if it does not reflect that ethic, it is a place to avoid if at all possible.
While Silicon Valley may represent the ageism problem in a particularly acute way owing to its youth culture, it really is no different from anywhere else. There is the good and the bad, and we each need to do what we can to uphold a high standard of common decency for ourselves and to make sure others do the same. It may not be a complete answer but it can help a lot in our immediate work environments and that will go a lot farther toward solving the problem than the law ever can.
Is this good or fair when it does happen? No.
Is it illegal? Sometimes, but making formal proof is daunting at best and usually not possible.
Thus, it comes down to this: treat others as you yourself would want to be treated. If a workplace reflects that ethic, it will be a place where old and young alike will want to work and where older workers will receive their due as befits their experience, skills, and performance, good or bad; if it does not reflect that ethic, it is a place to avoid if at all possible.
While Silicon Valley may represent the ageism problem in a particularly acute way owing to its youth culture, it really is no different from anywhere else. There is the good and the bad, and we each need to do what we can to uphold a high standard of common decency for ourselves and to make sure others do the same. It may not be a complete answer but it can help a lot in our immediate work environments and that will go a lot farther toward solving the problem than the law ever can.
It always confused me that some really bright young people (e.g., Zuckerberg) can't grasp this: the variation in intelligence and capability due to non-age factors >>> the variation in intelligence and capability due to age factors.
Put another way, I'd take Einstein in his 40s over a thousand other randomly-chosen physicists in their 20s
Put another way, I'd take Einstein in his 40s over a thousand other randomly-chosen physicists in their 20s
> I'd take Einstein in his 40s over a thousand other randomly-chosen physicists in their 20s
(I don't think I've seen a more clear example of a false dichotomy.)
I agree that age is rarely the determining factor for someone's general competence: someone who's competent young is going to be competent when they're older. Their strengths do shift slightly, though.
Depending on the mission, experience may extremely valuable; when breaking new ground, sometimes creativity and energy are more important. It's hard to argue that there's no correlation with age there over a person's life, even if it's relatively minor.
Ageism to me seems a lot like sexism, racism, and every other -ism. The error is to use those characteristics as false metrics for someone's competence: e.g. "you're old, therefore you're slow" or "you're young, therefore you don't know what you're talking about". Let their work speak for itself and see if they're the right fit for the job at hand. The fact that there are age biases due to the type of work isn't always indicative of discrimination, though it often is.
(In Zuckerberg's case, I would be unsurprised to hear about discrimination given his YC07 talk about "hiring young").
(I don't think I've seen a more clear example of a false dichotomy.)
I agree that age is rarely the determining factor for someone's general competence: someone who's competent young is going to be competent when they're older. Their strengths do shift slightly, though.
Depending on the mission, experience may extremely valuable; when breaking new ground, sometimes creativity and energy are more important. It's hard to argue that there's no correlation with age there over a person's life, even if it's relatively minor.
Ageism to me seems a lot like sexism, racism, and every other -ism. The error is to use those characteristics as false metrics for someone's competence: e.g. "you're old, therefore you're slow" or "you're young, therefore you don't know what you're talking about". Let their work speak for itself and see if they're the right fit for the job at hand. The fact that there are age biases due to the type of work isn't always indicative of discrimination, though it often is.
(In Zuckerberg's case, I would be unsurprised to hear about discrimination given his YC07 talk about "hiring young").
It should be easy to tell the difference:
If it's mainly selection based on metrics of certain types of competence and strengths that may correlate with age, then we shouldn't be hearing stories about people having to shave or dye their hair, get a hipster-wardrobe, just to have a chance at getting a second interview. (or plastic surgery ...)
If it's mainly selection based on metrics of certain types of competence and strengths that may correlate with age, then we shouldn't be hearing stories about people having to shave or dye their hair, get a hipster-wardrobe, just to have a chance at getting a second interview. (or plastic surgery ...)
Young people are naive and unencumbered, so a few older VCs can use their cheap and highly skilled labor to make a lot of money. Older people aren't such suckers.
This. Many startups claim to offer "competitive" salaries, but really only mean "competitive for someone with little experience".
Now here's the question, if I'm asking for twice what a company claims that they can afford, are they better off employing me, or two (or three) engineers with little experience?
More and cheaper may be better, YMMV
Now here's the question, if I'm asking for twice what a company claims that they can afford, are they better off employing me, or two (or three) engineers with little experience?
More and cheaper may be better, YMMV
Um, this is no secret.
A data point: according to my quick eyeball count, only around 25% of these founders are "young" - http://www.sequoiacap.com/us/early
[Disclaimer: I'm an EIR at Sequoia at the ripe old age of 46]
[Disclaimer: I'm an EIR at Sequoia at the ripe old age of 46]
Age based cultural separations aside, I think a lot of people, have a really hard time grasping that experience isn't directly related with skill. There are tons of 'veteran programmers' who are worse than the majority of 20 year olds in the valley.
I don't think in the outside world, outside tech, anyone in their 40s would think age discrimination was happening to them," says blahblah
That's so unbelievably untrue that I wonder if he cringed when he saw it in print. My father is completely untechnical and works in government policy. 12 years ago, when he started looking for a new job (aged ~45), he went to a recruiter who told him to shave his (grey) beard and maybe dye his hair.
While I am sure that Silicon Valley and tech in general does have a more pronounced age-ism problem than everywhere else, it does nobody any favours to repeat this kind of hyperbolic bullshit that 'everywhere else is amazing! We suck!'.
That's so unbelievably untrue that I wonder if he cringed when he saw it in print. My father is completely untechnical and works in government policy. 12 years ago, when he started looking for a new job (aged ~45), he went to a recruiter who told him to shave his (grey) beard and maybe dye his hair.
While I am sure that Silicon Valley and tech in general does have a more pronounced age-ism problem than everywhere else, it does nobody any favours to repeat this kind of hyperbolic bullshit that 'everywhere else is amazing! We suck!'.
Secret? When everyone knows something it isn't a secret.
if there is truly no difference in productivity from excellent programmers over 40 and "young" programmers why wouldn't there be companies that take advantage of this obvious bias and hire primarily older programmers? Wouldnt the decrease in market demand for older developers drive their salary levels down and thus provide a large market advantage to the company hiring them exclusively? (obviously assuming equal or better creative and productive output)
I know this is a classic laissez faire market argument.
Hypothesis: On the whole, older developers are not as productive.
I know this is a classic laissez faire market argument.
Hypothesis: On the whole, older developers are not as productive.
Shirts and sneakers are OK, but the eyelid lift part is a bit sad.
Honestly I have never seen ageism. Only people that didn't continue to learn everyday not getting hired. BTW, I am old.
That's interesting. How can one do that and still claim that "we are hiring the best 1% of engineers"?