[_ea1k]

My guess is that he subscribes to the theory that companies use questions that would normally be taught in college to filter out older applicants. Ie, some assume that time since college isa major factor in people knowing these answers.

Personally, I find it terribly unlikely that any such filtering is intentional on any level.

[dpritchett]

There are several operational benefits to fresh graduates from the perspective of the hiring organization:

- What little experience they have is effectively all relevant to the job and hence easier to justify paying for. If a neophyte can do 80% of a veteran's work for 50% of the pay, it's a tempting tradeoff. A software veteran's second decade of experience may not be worth the increased sticker price if you're asking them to perform low- and mid-level tasks.

- They are less likely to have personal entanglements (kids, family, medical).

- They are an easily appraised and substituted commodity: standard salary scales apply.

- They are less likely to know their market value and hence less likely to negotiate for increased compensation or time off.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

That is simply... depressing, not to mention unwise.

The neophyte may be able to do 80% of the veteran's job, but that's the easily-replaceable 80%. If I'm hiring for a position that requires experience, I know that the last 20% is worth paying for. Someone is going to have to do that 20% and if it's not the new hire, then why are we hiring him?

Personal entanglements? I have never had any idea about the family status of anyone I've hired unless they were wearing a wedding ring. I don't need to know and I'm certainly not going to open the firm up to a lawsuit by asking. HR is the only one who will know, and HR does not get to veto what the software dev. interviewers say unless the candidate wants more $$ than the position offers. And even then, they'll come back to us and ask if we think he's worth it.

Compensation? Again, the interviewers don't care or know. And really does any company with half a brain care? If you're being hired, it's because we expect that you will make the company orders of magnitude more than we pay you. In that light, trying to push for the maximum salary in the pay band is really not a big deal. It's in the budget after all.

[Aqua_Geek]

> If I'm hiring for a position that requires experience, I know that the last 20% is worth paying for. Someone is going to have to do that 20% and if it's not the new hire, then why are we hiring him?

Sadly, not everyone shares your view. Many seem to forget about that last 20% and just focus on the 50% savings. I've seen it happen to more than one senior dev...

[dpritchett]

You're right, of course. I was merely attempting to provide a devil's advocate's view. Perhaps I should have said "rationalizations" rather than "benefits".

[rhizome]

You should be a fly on the wall of a hiring meeting, or work in a startup whose office is open-plan.