As someone who hires tech engineers I can testify that that is not the case.

There are two main reasons why not to hire a junior.

1. It takes a lot of time to get to a point we're you see a return of value. The team needs to invest a lot in juniors and it affects the delivery of the team.

2. The risk is always high hiring. It's hard to know if the person is really good and really willing to put in the effort. With juniors it's even higher since they haven't done this before so there are less references.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I've been hiring engineers in the US for 20 years, both native and foreign. I can attest that juniors are indeed high maintenance and low skill. That isn't my point.

Yes, when you "need more engineers" it's always when you need someone with skills NOW. The way you bring up juniors is to give them peripheral tasks, things where they can learn the ropes, understand the process. My concern is these "junior tasks" are being filled with foreign workers, and this is why so many of the "high demand" senior engineers happen to be foreign. They were given the opportunity over native engineers. This is very very bad as a policy.

With %45 of the workforce being in STEM, and none of them can start a family and buy a home until they are too old to have children, we have a serious policy problem, and everyone can see it plain as day.

Wondering if you've noticed the trend (at least in software) of roles in which only a naive college grad would accept? Something that requires excessive responsibility, overworking, putting out fires, all nighters, etc.

Been searching for work recently (13 years exp) and 5-6 years ago I don't really recall this being the case, but I'm noticing it even in shit companies now. 4-5 rounds of interviewing, leetcode algorithm memorization...all that fun H1B stuff

I am not in the USA, but when I hire it's usually a senior because in the end a junior will be to expensivento train.