|
|
|
|
|
|
by bbrunner
600 days ago
|
|
|
The author isn't wrong that "Senior" is probably a bit of an inflation for what it means in the industry - competent enough to work on medium to large projects with little oversight - but Staff, Senior Staff and Principal titles all exist to fill the gap the author is talking about, as does architect, although I don't see that one as often. It's definitely confusing if you aren't intimately familiar with the industry though. For what it's worth, I can't think of any notable company where senior is anywhere close to the terminal level for a software engineer. |
|
|
The oher big organizations, home-grown agencies and similar, usually go from junior and medior to senior. Juniors aren't hired, because "what we do is too complex for them".
After senior you sometimes have an architect role, and sometimes even a senior architect, but that's about it for ICs. Architects are generally not expected to code, or even know how to code. It's more about landscapes of applications.
In practice, senior engineer is a terminal level, though I don't think these companies ever really made a considered choice regarding terminal levels. Up or out would run into problems with employment law very quickly after two years, so it's not a policy that will work well here.
People looking for raises can get them. There's a band for salaries and people can get a few percent raise for performance. Always too little of course. In general, once you reach the end of senior you can eiter do lead or management functions, or do the architect thing, or leave to be a rent-a-dev. Though employment law has recently made that last one harder, due to union pressure.