I'm asking myself why it's pertinent for an employer to know that their prospects are very, very young and I cannot think of any answer that isn't nefarious in nature. Especially seeing as this is popping up in the middle of a fairly large and seemingly effective labor advocacy movement.<p>Beyond that, the premise seems flawed. Engineers do not function like athletes. They do not need to be prepared early for a peak that will occur in their twenties and may not last very long. Their performance cannot be easily plotted on a graph or measured deterministically and that's not for a lack of executives trying to do so for decades now. As far as I am concerned a sufficiently talented and motivated tech sector employee can achieve "LeBron" level distinction in their field even if they start in their thirties.<p>I wish all the best for the teenagers involved, and I deeply hope that nobody exploits their potential lack of life or professional experience.
<i>scouting teenage tech prodigies and whiz kids</i><p>Is there much evidence that someone who was great at tech as a teenager goes on to be good at tech in a career? Some do, of course, but some flame out too (especially given the pressure of being labelled 'gifted' or a 'prodigy'). It'd be interesting to see if this business lifts up some kids and turns them into amazing engineers and founders, or if it piles on more pressure and causes fewer of them to go on to great careers.
As long as the kids are fine with it, then good.<p>Almost all ambitious teenager wants to make money at some point.<p>In fact this is the sort of thing that should have existed a long time ago.<p>If employers don’t want to hire teenagers at a junior level, they certainly can’t hire a teenager at a senior level at a FAANG company, they would already be starting their own company, should they leave.