Rework jason fried

Years of irrelevance 

---

 
We've all seen job ads that say, "Five years of experience required." That may 
give you a number, but it tells you nothing. 
 
Of course, requiring some baseline level of experience can be a good idea when 
hiring. It makes sense to go after candidates with six months to a year of experience. It 
takes that long to internalize the idioms, learn how things work, understand the relevant 
tools, etc. 
 
But after that, the curve flattens out. There's surprisingly little difference between 
a candidate with six months of experience and one with six years. The real difference 
comes from the individual's dedication, personality, and intelligence. 
 
How do you really measure this stuff anyway? What does five years of experience 
mean? If you spent a couple of weekends experimenting with something a few years 
back, can you count that as a year of experience? How is a company supposed to verify 
these claims? These are murky waters. 
 
How long someone's been doing it is overrated. What matters is how well they've 
been doing it.