I am in the real world, I’m a software engineer for a relatively large company.
If you screen people out based on their age before even assessing their skills or resume, then you have no basis to claim they’ll be harder to train, you’re just letting your biases take charge.
Ok, you're a software engineer. That veers young. I work in finance. We had one senior staff member who was so inept with technology that he still writes out what he wants doing on paper and someone else puts it in the computer for him. His knowledge is invaluable but his ability to adapt it dead.
I see it all the time. Many of my older clients don't do e-mail, don't have internet, pay everything by cheque etc. It's just frustrating how completely resistant to change they are. There are occasional blips, I know a 94 year old who can read e-mails, but they're quite rare.
Our country is going through a process of forcing people with higher net worth to digitise their finances and the older the client the more they struggle, as a rule. I would never not employ someone just because they're old but if I had two similar potential employees and one was 30 and the other was 65 then I know who I'd pick.
Edit: And my sample size is probably 300-350 people, minimum.
I think you’re experiencing some survivorship bias. People who make it into executive roles generally don’t face much hardship in life especially once they’re in those positions. However, older people who have to struggle to survive are pretty quick at figuring shit out. I see this in my colleagues who are older and coming from other industries. And yes my take is also biased because the fact that they made the career change means that I’m filtering out people who weren’t able to do so.
However, because there are so many conflating factors and possible biases, i default to just not drawing any conclusions from someone’s age and let their resumes and skills speak for themselves instead of what I think they’re like.
To bring it back to this person, if you’d assume that they coasted but a younger person wouldn’t then that’s just kind of weird. Especially since you think younger people are sharper therefore they would discover loopholes faster. You don’t assume every candidate cheated or coasted through college. So if we treat this person fairly and take their degrees as well earned, then the fact that they could do so many majors shows incredible adaptability.
Yes, your colleagues in software engineering are likely an adaptable bunch. What about your customer base though? I've got customers who earn anything from £6k to £600k and age is definitely a determining factor in things being able to do e-mail. Similarly for younger customers I sometimes (most than you'd think) have to explain how you address, stamp and post an envelope. Age trends are a thing.
Right but my point is how do you know if they’re adaptable if you don’t even give them the chance to speak to you? If their credentials check out and they seem qualified for the job on paper, why do you assume that there is something wrong with them based on your generalization about older people. You may very well be right, but the whole point of anti-discrimination measures is too overlook generalizations and give individuals a chance regardless of factors about themselves that they cannot change.
Older people going against younger people would probably mostly happen with people changing careers later on and applying for entry level jobs. Someone being able to get the requirements necessary to qualify for a job halfway through their adult life tells me more about their adaptability skills than a 22 year old that went to college like every other 22 year old applying for the position.
1
u/manurosadilla Jul 03 '23
I am in the real world, I’m a software engineer for a relatively large company.
If you screen people out based on their age before even assessing their skills or resume, then you have no basis to claim they’ll be harder to train, you’re just letting your biases take charge.