[bad_user]

There's nothing wrong with "Senior".

Lots of years of experience translate to having a proven track record of delivered value, along with management skills and experience of failure, things that can't be substituted by talent or knowledge acquired from reading about the works of others.

> a person with 3-4 years of experience to be a "Very Good Engineer"

Not the same thing — this is actually the same problem as with hiring practices that people love to hate. Good college degrees, open source contributions, algorithmic exercises during the interview, etc... are all designed to prove your worth. People don't like you for what you are, because you have to show them what you're capable of first. And with 3-4 years of experience, you can slap that "Master" label on your job title, but without being able to show something for it, people will just laugh at you.

Also this trend of disrespecting the elderly is nothing new. Ageism is a thing and your opinion is actually in line with what the entire world is already thinking. Younger means cheaper, more prone to abuse, to working long hours and for many tasks just as capable as a more expensive senior.

Of course, this is beneficial to young people, but the tragedy is that it doesn't last. You'll be playing a whole different tune in 5 years max, either because you'll end up competing with people that are 5 to 10 years younger and cheaper, or because the bubble will finally burst due to automation, leaving this sea of STEM graduates out of a job, just like steel workers in the nineties. We are automating ourselves as part of our job description, so it should be no surprise when it happens.

[Chyzwar]

Lots of years of experience prove nothing. If someone was working for 10 years in Java backend apps, using outdated tech and in an environment that delivered value is secondary to risk, he/she is not senior.

3 years is minimum for getting close to being competent. I would argue that before that you will deliver very little.

[AstralStorm]

They are a senior engineer... in their specific scope.

These levels are not exactly transferable necessarily.

You should be able to trust that an experienced developer like this would be able to adapt to newer methods and API.

[JustSomeNobody]

There is absolutely no reason to believe that someone with 10 years Java on the backend can't go do, say, .Net at an equivalent level. It wouldn't take long to pick up the syntax, libraries and tooling.

If you take language out of it, the experience is easily transferable.

The problem is everyone thinks their project/product is special and they're inventing something completely new. You're not. Sorry. This is software where everything old is new again.

[mywittyname]

Your experience is not limited to what you do at your job. My previous job was working on a 10+ year old Java backend app and my current job is doing data mining and ML (which I was qualified for and hit the ground running). There is almost no overlap between the positions, yet I've performed well enough in both roles.

One should not expect that people use every skill they have at every job they do.