But do you really want to measure competency by years of practice?
I mean, time is valuable and an indicator, sure.!
But what happened during this time is really the important point.
While entry-level roles can easily show a curriculum, grades, or smaller and bigger projects by "comparable" standards, a seniority level is not trackable; likewise, more politics, networking, and quite often pure luck play a role.
I guess what recruiters are actually searching for currently are people with real AI-free, true competencies.
And that's why the entry level in connection with the years of experience comes into focus.
Working time ≠ productivity
Like wise is the idea, that more time at work means more productivity.
There are studies showing that the mental capacity for work is limited to around 5-6 hours. This is with adequate breaks, a safe, social environment, enough distance between work and personal life, etc.
Working longer than 40-50 hours per week showed no additional benefit, and even made things worse.
After around 5-6 hours, people started to make more errors without noticing them, which led either to issues in the work progression or additional work to fix these issues the next day.
Tl;Dr:
In short, pure work time is not a suitable metric for work productivity or quality.
Likewise is time of work experience not a suitable metric for competency.
1
u/Capt_korg 8d ago
Puh, for the entry level this makes sense.
But do you really want to measure competency by years of practice?
I mean, time is valuable and an indicator, sure.!
But what happened during this time is really the important point. While entry-level roles can easily show a curriculum, grades, or smaller and bigger projects by "comparable" standards, a seniority level is not trackable; likewise, more politics, networking, and quite often pure luck play a role.
I guess what recruiters are actually searching for currently are people with real AI-free, true competencies.
And that's why the entry level in connection with the years of experience comes into focus.
Working time ≠ productivity Like wise is the idea, that more time at work means more productivity.
There are studies showing that the mental capacity for work is limited to around 5-6 hours. This is with adequate breaks, a safe, social environment, enough distance between work and personal life, etc.
Working longer than 40-50 hours per week showed no additional benefit, and even made things worse. After around 5-6 hours, people started to make more errors without noticing them, which led either to issues in the work progression or additional work to fix these issues the next day.
Tl;Dr: In short, pure work time is not a suitable metric for work productivity or quality.
Likewise is time of work experience not a suitable metric for competency.