Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume



  • @pmoncho said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:

    Just because Mom has been driving for 23 years taking her children mostly around town and her daughter has been driving for three around the same town doesn't make her daughter the same quality driver. I think wisdom comes into play also.

    This is very different, you are only looking at time, not noting that one acquired the same skills in less time. You've "locked" the alternative parameter.

    It's more like asking if 23 years of driving to the grocery store on the same route every day at 3PM gives you the experience that a road racer gets in two years? Or a professional truck driver gets in six months.

    We all know people with decades of driving experience that can't handle the slightest variation to their norm. Because their driving is all done under super simpler, repetitive conditions. Three years of winter driving in NY will give you more experience than ten lifetimes of driving in Texas, for example.



  • @pmoncho said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:

    @scottalanmiller said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:

    @pmoncho said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:

    I can understand both sides of the situation. I would have to look at the depth of knowledge in each case.

    The contrived scenario was based on comparable depth of knowledge once probed. So that the isolated difference was "how long it took to achieve similar knowledge."

    Oh my bad. Ok. Well then Larry could definitely be a slacker.

    Although, isn't the probing done by the interviewer? What if the interviewer did not ask the right questions? I guess that is where the difference may lie.

    Of course, but now you are assuming an inability to interview. Which granted, if often lacking, but the question is "is pure time spent" the best fall back way to evaluate skills? No matter how bad someone is, as long as they don't die, they will gain experience in that way. That's roughly the lowest possible bar.



  • IT experience is knowledge in how things used to be done in the past.
    Those with no experience underrate it's value - those with lots of experience overrate it's value.



  • @Pete-S said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:

    IT experience is knowledge in how things used to be done in the past.
    Those with no experience underrate it's value - those with lots of experience overrate it's value.

    Especially those that have sat at one place a long ass time.



  • @Pete-S said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:

    IT experience is knowledge in how things used to be done in the past.
    Those with no experience underrate it's value - those with lots of experience overrate it's value.

    That's one kind of experience, and it has value. Knowing how DOS worked, then OS/2, then NT and each change over the years teaches you a lot of things and perspective. But it's not on par with experience in things that apply today and a range of things for perspective. I guess horizontal vs vertical experience.

    Candidate A: Knows all the ins and outs of a single product over a decade.
    Candidate B: Knows the ins and outs of three products in the same category over a three year period.



  • @scottalanmiller Your contrived difference are a bit extreme, but a valid thought concept.

    It is unlikely any 3 year experience person will have a depth that the 13 year person does, but I certain could name names that prove your point. That is the exception IMO.

    But what does matter is if the 13 year person's depth was actually broad enough to overcome the fact that the same knowledge level implies. I find that to be extremely unlikely. The broader depth of experience is a very minor difference most of the time.



  • @JaredBusch said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:

    @scottalanmiller Your contrived difference are a bit extreme, but a valid thought concept.

    It is unlikely any 3 year experience person will have a depth that the 13 year person does, but I certain could name names that prove your point. That is the exception IMO.

    This came up today and while the names were changed, the years were not.



  • @scottalanmiller said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:

    @JaredBusch said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:

    @scottalanmiller Your contrived difference are a bit extreme, but a valid thought concept.

    It is unlikely any 3 year experience person will have a depth that the 13 year person does, but I certain could name names that prove your point. That is the exception IMO.

    This came up today and while the names were changed, the years were not.

    Like Elon Musk I'd pick the fastest learner and the smartest person - which could be either one of them.



  • @Pete-S said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:

    @scottalanmiller said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:

    @JaredBusch said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:

    @scottalanmiller Your contrived difference are a bit extreme, but a valid thought concept.

    It is unlikely any 3 year experience person will have a depth that the 13 year person does, but I certain could name names that prove your point. That is the exception IMO.

    This came up today and while the names were changed, the years were not.

    Like Elon Musk I'd pick the fastest learner and the smartest person - which could be either one of them.

    Could be either one, but the available factors point very heavily to Melissa.



  • @scottalanmiller said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:

    @JaredBusch said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:

    @scottalanmiller Your contrived difference are a bit extreme, but a valid thought concept.

    It is unlikely any 3 year experience person will have a depth that the 13 year person does, but I certain could name names that prove your point. That is the exception IMO.

    This came up today and while the names were changed, the years were not.

    Right. It happens. But it is unusual. The unusual part is the 3 year person though. Not the 13.



  • @JaredBusch said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:

    But what does matter is if the 13 year person's depth was actually broad enough to overcome the fact that the same knowledge level implies. I find that to be extremely unlikely. The broader depth of experience is a very minor difference most of the time.

    In this case, the 20 year person wasn't able to compete with the 3 year. Not hugely different, but noticeably struggling in comparison.





  • @scottalanmiller said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:

    @pmoncho said in Looking at Longevity of Experience on a Resume:

    Just because Mom has been driving for 23 years taking her children mostly around town and her daughter has been driving for three around the same town doesn't make her daughter the same quality driver. I think wisdom comes into play also.

    We all know people with decades of driving experience that can't handle the slightest variation to their norm. Because their driving is all done under super simpler, repetitive conditions. Three years of winter driving in NY will give you more experience than ten lifetimes of driving in Texas, for example.

    Ha, you'd think. I've seen plates from both states and this is debatable.



  • I dont believe there is anyway you can really quantify or qualify experience (even with a very broad brush). It means so many different things. Some of my most helpful experience comes from working with the Helpdesk (believe it or not). HelpDesk can teach you alot about customer service and internals of IT that you cannot pick up from any other area. In fact, people laugh when they see helpdesk on my resume from 13 years ago, but I tell you that experience was far more valuable than some of the other positions I worked.

    Another example is a IT Administratior job I had for a medical company with 200 employees. The job was not ideal to put it nicely. It is kind of how I picture Hell. I was the SINGLE IT employee for the company, the bosses sucked hard (they didnt listen to anything that was industry best practice), the employees sucked, and I had zero money for budget. I left after only a few months because it was terrible! On paper if I stayed for 3-4 years it would look like EXCELLENT experience. I mean the only IT administrator for a company of 200 employees, it must mean this guy can do everything, right? No in reality I was doing mostly desktop support for complete idiots.

    @Emad-R also brings up a good point about the 2-4 year tenure. You will find that most of hungry, motivated IT people are acustomed to doing this. As it gives the best reward to experience ratio. I like @Emad-R have proven this time and time again in my career. So what happens is you get 2-4 years in a specific area before you move up to a different area and/or higher position.

    TLDR: This isnt black and white and will never be black and white. There is no reason to even try to make it black and white.



  • I view length of experience like tenure. I shows very little about the qualities of the candidate. In some places, like where I work, it is simply a measure of being able to not get fired. I could simply claim my few years of experience because I am extremely unlikely to get fired, and so accrue experience from that fact. But that would say nothing about my actual skills or value as a candidate. I feel the same way about college degrees. I know too many people, both with degrees and with lots of time experience, that are poor choices for a lot of tasks, simply because who they are and the other skills they lack. Perhaps experience or a degree can be an ok initial standard for getting a resume past the basic screening, but any competent interviewer should be able to tell when that experience was good or just from time served.