This is something being glossed over by most of the responses. Age discrimination (or rather, age preconception, if that's a less loaded term) is frighteningly real.
i would expect that an older person with more battle tested experience ought to fair better tbh, so i don't get it with the agism. Unless the position is meant for a high strung startup where you're expected to basically live there, with no dependents to look after etc.
There are several reasons younger developers are sometimes valued over older candidates. Work life balance is part of it, but there are other factors at play. This is a pretty well trodden topic, and you can find a lot of the typical discussion points by Googling. A common explanation, for instance, is that experience in tech doesn't accrue a ton of value due to tech obsolescence - 20 Cobol experience doesn't really translate to much of anything these days.
However, rather than re-hash all that, it's worth taking a look at the numbers - numbers that absolutely indicate a younger skewing workforce. For instance, the average age at Facebook is 26, and 31 at Google. Tech as a whole leans young, with the "oldest" tech company workforce (HP) still younger than the national median [1]
Now, whether simply having a younger workforce points towards actual age discrimination is a matter of fair debate. A perfectly reasonable explanation might be that tech is a young field, hence a young workforce. However, there are enough confounding factors (limitations of experience, work/life balance in dev roles, etc.) that certainly make for rational arguments in favor of age being more of burden than boon.
Then, of course, you have stuff like this :
> "Young people are just smarter. Why are most chess masters under 30? I don't know. Young people just have simpler lives. We may not own a car. We may not have family. Simplicity in life allows you to focus on what's important." -- Zuckerberg
True or not, it would be weird to argue that his opinion is somehow a rare isolated outlier. It speaks to a common conception - both in the valley and in tech - that this is a business for the young.
It speaks to a common conception - both in the valley and in tech - that this is a business for the young.
Most programming work doesn't require a genius level iq. It requires being able to build simple things very, very quickly. As a result, the experience level at a company matches the structure pyramid. The smart, older guys at the top make all the tough decisions and the fresh, younger guys at the bottom code as fast as they can. As those at the bottom age, they find themselves competing with other programmers their age for far fewer jobs toward the top of the pyramid.
In some cases, those with less experience are threatened by people who have more, and if a company has a low median age experience might be an issue to the interviewers. The problem is exacerbated when the interviewee is not impressed when the latest, bleeding edge tech is in use at the target company, and has seen similar projects completed with stable and boring tech.
In others, especially those with the high-strung startup mentality you mention, they are looking for people to work more hours for less pay and promises. Younger people are more able / willing to take risks. Experienced workers are not as interested in promises, but prefer defined returns on their individual investments.
Yeah, that was my first thought on reading that article. He's old and doesn't have a gazillion skills on his resume because he stayed in one place for a long time.
Since he was explicitly told that they wouldn't be sending his resume to anyone else that pretty much means the failings are purely resume-based, not ability or interview skills. I have a hard time picturing a resume making one unemployable other than due to age discrimination.
