... and the medical field, and the law field, and the engineering field. Basically if you want to get premium dollars when trading your skills, you have to have premium skills.

All those other fields value experience very highly. Software engineering is the only field that doesn't care what you've worked on in the past or what you've done. They only care about what trick algorithm that you will never utilize that you can answer on a white board.

Several of those field mentioned also have fairly high barriers of entry in terms of certification. They try to ensure that folks pursuing those careers have a core level of understanding necessary to pursue work in those fields. Whether or not they're successful in doing that is, of course, a matter of debate (as everything is).

I know understanding CS fundamentals and employer expectations about this are a lightning rod here, so I don't want to apply a value judgement on that here. However, what's the equivalent to the board or bar exams in our field (that lets us compare ourselves to those fields)?

That doesn't make sense. If the problem is that we don't have some sort of licensing board, experience should be more highly valued, not less.

I guess where I was going was that there was a fairly high standard to "get in the door" first, after which experience seems to be valued more uniformly (at least more than in software).

We don't have the equivalent in software, and we also seem to have a recurring discussion about effective ways to filter people during an interview process. I've certainly had mixed results in my limited sample set when considering past experience to actual performance of hires.

Is there a good way to translate the value of someone's experience?

EDIT: For that matter, I guess I should wonder how folks translate the value of people in those other fields effectively (or if they do at all).

I don't know, but if you don't have other qualifications to go on, surely the fact that they were able to hack it at other companies for a long time is the strongest signal you have.

I think this is most indicative of poor management. The "real" problem is the not the tech providers, but the tech managers.

What I've experienced is that many of the tech managers either 1) couldn't hack it to begin with, so they pivoted (this pivot may have been in college, or in the workforce), or 2) haven't stayed relevant themselves.

Those fields tend to evolve rather more organically.

You and I know that picking up a new language or framework isn't hard, and getting up to speed in the libs is just a case of some time and google. Recruiters, especially agencies and HR still don't grok this. I rarely had problems if I got past those to the techies or founders.

What is your point. The job market is not meant to cater to people's specific changes in work/life preferences.

This is almost analogous to complaining about construction being ageist against older people who don't keep in shape. Yeah guess what, you need to in order to do the work.

Or, maybe if we collectively push for a culture where employers who expect you to learn new technology pay you to learn said new technology, staying up to date won't feel so awfully one-sided.

Why would they do that when there are people there is a large enough supply of people with the relevant skills?

I'm sorry but even if you know the ins and outs of language or a framework, it still doesn't matter if you do poorly on white board questions. As much as everyone says "its to see your thinking process". Nothing you've worked on in the past or have experienced matters.

Expectations just need to be set accordingly. Either the employer factors in "learning" time for employees to stay up to date as they start new projects, or the employee is told they need to spend some amount of their own time on training.

A good company will hire people who are not just skilled, but are assets to the work environment. If a company believes after-hours beer pong adds significantly to the happiness and productivity of their employees, whatever. Good for them. I don't think it's unfair of them to not hire somebody who works a strict 9-5, nor do I think that makes the whole industry "shit".

Honestly -- more people work in the 9-5 environment than the Sillicon-Valley brouhaha. You just hear about the brouhaha more because it's a much sexier thing to market.

So you suggest that we hire old people that haven't kept their skills relevant out of pity?

No, I think the suggestion is that expecting people to spend every waking hour of their lives reading about programming isn't realistic.

It doesn't require you to spend every waking hour reading about programming.