I've observed a concerning trend on LinkedIn lately that warrants a discussion within our profession. It appears that individuals with relatively minimal experience, typically in the range of 2 to 4 years, are increasingly adopting the title of "Senior Software Engineer." This practice is concering, as it may dilute the significance and respect associated with the senior designation within our field and it's inappropriate for this title to be used so callously. By prematurely adopting such titles, individuals may inadvertently undermine the true value and recognition of seniority in our profession. It's essential for the software engineering community to maintain a standard that accurately reflects the level of expertise and experience that comes with the senior role. This will not only ensure that employers can make informed decisions when hiring but also help in maintaining the integrity of our field as a whole.
If you believe titles equate some sort of seniority, like your ideas/solutions are better simply because of your title and lower titles get lower respect, then that's a giant red flag for me as in a "no hire".<p>A Senior at a shop building web sites and apps for small/local businesses will not have the same experience as a Senior at a company scaling into millions of transactions per minute. There should be no disrespect in either direction. The stereotypical Senior working on high volume apps/sites (knows algorithms really well, can sniff out N+1 issues in their sleep, etc.) probably couldn't cut it at a small web/app shop. They may not have the social skills to sit down with local business owners and go through a web design process and make the customer happy whilst avoiding things like "I want a pink glowing button".<p>Titles don't mean anything across companies. When interviewing someone I don't care what their titles were, I care about the experience they gained and if that and their personality is a match for the organization.
That's why there's many layers after that. "Staff", "Principal, "Fellow", plus all the management ones.<p>At this point, senior just means: competent with hands and mouth.<p>And no they're not "adopting" the title, they're being given it by companies, partly due to title inflation.<p>And experience doesn't matter that much. I've managed devs with 3 years of experience who were excellent. I've also known devs with 20yrs+ who were absolutely useless. There's no substitute for IQ and conscientiousness.<p>So no, nothing's been undermined except the word "senior" taking it's original meaning of "old".
Well, we all call ourselves Software Engineer, while in reality, it's pretty far from Engineering. Nothing from with that of course, just pointing out the irony.<p>4 years is a lot of time. A smart and learning junior, can definitely get to senior in that timeframe. In fact, seniority should not be measured in years.
After 20 years in industry, I do think title inflation is a real issue. Senior is the new just "software engineer", Staff is the new Senior, and so on...<p>The problem isn't just an across-companies thing, within companies people generally don't really do work scoped to that role. They more-or-less continue chugging along in their role. Nobody is the "bad guy" to come and point out the mismatch.<p>There's also general lack of calibration across organizations at companies. Where a staff in one org is really a senior in another. And companies with poor engineering cultures don't have enough across team mobility to calibrate well.<p>This also happens because people want to get paid more and managers want to retain them. Seniors cap out at a certain pay level. We probably should have a route for people to be really good seniors and still get paid a lot just crushing code.<p>This also happens just because social pressures that you should progress in your career. When I sort of think we should reward people for their growth in different ways (their ability to learn and crush any type of code) -- not just for somehow acquiring org or company wide scope, coaching others, or taking on architecture.<p>I think we generally don't hold high enough expectations in our field too. Depending on the culture, people basically "get away with" more without getting blunt feedback on where they should be held to a higher standard.
It’s just a small part of the problem.<p>Other “engineers” get an engineering degree, have a system of licensure, etc. People don’t ordinarily get a degree in “software engineering” instead they get a degree in “computer science”. If you are an academic CS person you get ahead by writing papers, not writing software. Many CS academics are great programmers but they don’t necessarily have to be.<p>There are all sorts of divisions in our field, for instance some people will call me an idiot because I run a Windows desktop. 20 years ago that kind of hatred and ignorance was often extended towards Linux and open source by enterprises and Microsoft-culture developers.<p>Another thing that bugs me is the blog postings describing career paths in what used to be called FAANG where job titles are weirdly specialized like the language used by sexual subcultures like BDSM and polyarmory. I realized that those people don’t just have a fetish for talking strange, it is an interpersonal activity and that weird language helps them find each other and materializes their anxieties and power relationships. The same kind of thing is going on in the formerly called FAANG pyramids but it is not about the work it is about the social structure of those particular organizations which is quite different from where the rest of it work and like OKRs it gets appropriated like a cargo cult elsewhere.<p>I usually describe myself as a “software developer” and only call myself an engineer when there is a political or ideological reason to do so like those days I am shapeshifting Henry Petroski.
I take issue with presenting this as “adopting the title” like it’s something that people do unilaterally - most of the time it’s the title used by their company and it would be plain stupid for an invidual to turn down a promotion and higher pay just because the title has "senior" in it.
I don't see the problem. Unless you're saying that there are people in critical i.e. life or death roles who are under-qualified because they were hired based on what the called themselves. That would be a concern.<p>But in general, nah. I mean, the percentage of people in software who call themselves an engineers who are actually performing an engineering function is pretty small but doesn't seem to have ended the world (yet).<p>And tbh, if an organisation is making hiring decisions based on what someone called themselves on their resume in an unregulated field, then I'd argue that the problem is with the hirer not the hiree.
I have 10+ years of experience. This isn't a new trend, it's been like this for at least my entire tenure in software engineering.<p>In my experience, the hiring industry is decently calibrated to specific skills rather than specific titles. I've rejected Principals at FAANGs before, simply because they lacked requisite skills.<p>I have no comment on whether or not this is good or bad. All I can say is that this is the status quo, and that the companies I've seen are quite used to it. I think organizations need ways to reward people for their tenure, and the easiest way to do it is via title.
There some title inflation going on I think most people can see / feel that. But having said that I dont think it is unreasonable to be promoted to senior after 2-4 years at all, it all depends on the skills you have show and what level responsibility and impact you have had. Especially with a degree, you have then spent almost 8 years getting educated and working in the same field so with that in mind its even less of weird thing.
I was offered a "Senior Engineer" position at General Dynamics right out of grad school in 2015. I ended up not taking the position, but what are you expecting junior people to do? Decline the great sounding title out of a sense of duty?<p>At this point I try to completely ignore job titles and judge people based on their actual experience and demonstrated capability.
It's at least ten years too late to be complaining about this, probably closer to fifteen. "Senior" doesn't mean anything anymore other than perhaps having more than zero experience and should be treated as a null word when encountered on a resume.