> "Senior" is a title with a different meaning everywhere
And so is meaningless. Can we just get rid of this "I am a senior" nonsense? Also "I am a junior", come to that.
And so is meaningless. Can we just get rid of this "I am a senior" nonsense? Also "I am a junior", come to that.
Whatever other categorizations they might have for me, is on the company. Ultimately I don’t really care.
It's not what they call you, it's what they pay you - call by reference versus call by value, I guess.
hah, when I was employed by the Danish under ministry in charge of standardization (called IT og Telestyrelsen at that time) management people came through one day and asked what titles we wanted, and for various amusing reasons another guy and I said we want to be called "XML Architects".
They gave us business cards too!
This is correct because if I'm writing checks, the one making the most is generally my "senior" person.
I suppose this doesn't scale well though, especially when you start talking about niche skillsets where being objectively "good" gets conflated with "useful at the moment."
I present myself as someone with plenty of experience in both writing code and software architecture. Someone they direly need and will help their business achieve its goals for at least X amount of money. Which would be a great deal for them even if it doesn't sound cheap in the beginning.
Many told me it's too much. But a few have said yes.
You should think about the largest amount you think you can obtain. And add 15 - 20 % on top. You will be surprised in finding that someone will say yes.
Among my colleagues, or when someone (not a recruiter) asks me what I do for a living, I say: I'm a computer programmer.
If we can all start making progression ladders a normal part of a dev team then we recruit for a rung on the ladder rather than an arbitrary title. Then us Devs will be less precious about "That person said I wasn't a Senior", instead we can try and convince our prospective employer that we can e.g. "Consistently produce high quality code", "Is a thought-leader in new frameworks etc."
It also allows conversations about salary to be more open since we pay a range for a specific level and not a massive range of 20-100K depending on how good somebody interviews or how much gall they have asking for more than they deserve!
* been around longer and more subject to ageism
* more system design questions
When choosing between two candidates for a senior role:
Candidate A has: Int 16 Wis 10 Candidate B has: Int 14 Wis 12
I would almost always choose Candidate B.
Of course the specific methods of evaluation are complex, but I would argue that it is easier to evaluate wisdom by asking experiential questions.
I did. I simply don't understand how such scores can be evaluated in real life.