The "technology" industry is extremely and irrationally picky in selecting and retaining technical employees, primarily programmers or software engineers.
Not everyone does it. Not every company that does it does it consistently. It is largely subconscious. Technical or "cultural fit" excuses are typically cited to explain and justify the rejection of the taboo candidate.
There are a number of non-technical criterion that frequently push genuinely qualified, competent, indeed exceptional candidates into the "not qualified" category.
These include:
o Over thirty-five
o Looks over thirty-five (worse)
o White or gray hair (even worse)
o Has a Ph.D.
o A new or recent (within 2 years) Ph.D. (worse)
o Lack of a college degree
o Identifiable membership in certain low status minority groups, notably African-American or someone with a Spanish surname and visible American Indian ancestry
o Female
o Over ten years of purely technical experience regardless of age.
o Less than three years of paid professional experience (working for a University or government research lab often does not count)
o Expresses skepticism of a currently popular fad in programming
o Obviously knows more or is smarter or both than the people conducting the technical interview.
o Just plain different from the dominant group at the potential employer is some visible way.
o A long recent period of unemployment (over six months, probably over three months)
By his own account, the OP lacks a formal college degree and is well over 35.
The minority status thing is a problem from what I can tell among LGBT developers for sure (if you're looking for work outside of San Francisco or New York). I can't seem to understand why one's ethnicity or gender identity and/or sexual orientation should ever be an impediment to doing one's job, but for some reason certain people seem to fear the Other.
Not everyone does it. Not every company that does it does it consistently. It is largely subconscious. Technical or "cultural fit" excuses are typically cited to explain and justify the rejection of the taboo candidate.
There are a number of non-technical criterion that frequently push genuinely qualified, competent, indeed exceptional candidates into the "not qualified" category. These include:
o Over thirty-five
o Looks over thirty-five (worse)
o White or gray hair (even worse)
o Has a Ph.D.
o A new or recent (within 2 years) Ph.D. (worse)
o Lack of a college degree
o Identifiable membership in certain low status minority groups, notably African-American or someone with a Spanish surname and visible American Indian ancestry
o Female
o Over ten years of purely technical experience regardless of age.
o Less than three years of paid professional experience (working for a University or government research lab often does not count)
o Expresses skepticism of a currently popular fad in programming
o Obviously knows more or is smarter or both than the people conducting the technical interview.
o Just plain different from the dominant group at the potential employer is some visible way.
o A long recent period of unemployment (over six months, probably over three months)
By his own account, the OP lacks a formal college degree and is well over 35.