Years of irrelevance

We've all seen job ads that say, "Five years of experience required." That may

give you a number, but it tells you nothing.

Of course, requiring some baseline level of experience can be a good idea

when hiring. It makes sense to go after candidates with six months to a year of

experience. It takes that long to internalize the idioms, learn how things work,

understand the relevant tools, etc.

But after that, the curve flattens out. There's surprisingly little difference

between a candidate with six months of experience and one with six years. The

real difference comes from the individual's dedication, personality, and

intelligence.

How do you really measure this stuff anyway? What does five years of

experience mean? If you spent a couple of weekends experimenting with

something a few years back, can you count that as a year of experience? How is

a company supposed to verify these claims? These are murky waters.

How long someone's been doing it is overrated. What matters is how well

they've been doing it.