[hypewatch]

> 24-monthers never deeply learn how things work. They’ll typically add value to a new company by carrying a collection of things they’ve seen before and shallowly applying them to similar problems.

This reminds me of an old CTO I worked for that refused to hire anyone from a boot camp. And a CEO that turned multiple surfer candidates down because “they looked like a total stoner”. The term “24-monthers” is another example of this.

I think this simple surface level approach is lazy and ineffective. To hire great engineers, you have to put in the work to learn about and evaluate your candidates. Every person has their own background and story. Just because someone had some bad luck with their last couple startups doesn’t mean that they’re dumb or a bad engineer. It also doesn’t mean that they didn’t learn anything in their experience.

A big question to ask the candidate is why did they leave their last gig. It could be for the reasons the author mentions but there could be plenty of other reasons that are indicative of a high quality candidate. Again, as the hiring manager, you need to actually put in the work instead of making quick judgements on the surface.

And the final bit of “career advice” in this article’s conclusion is just silly. Almost no one leaves a company after 2 years because the “novelty” wares off. If the author took the time to ask they’d learn that people leave companies for a wide variety of reasons. Some good some bad. Grit for grit’s can turn into foolishness.