You Can't Get Into IT, or A Word for the Poor Intern

Once upon a time, things were simpler. In the memorable 2000s, junior developers were genuinely hired. Nobody asked about "relevant experience," didn't demand links to battle-tested projects, and didn't construct complex labyrinths of HR interviews, technical sessions, test assignments, and multi-stage interviews. People were invited to talk — often directly with their future manager. They were evaluated on merit: can do the job — stays; can't — goodbye. Simple, organic process. We didn't even know terms like "senior" (3-5 years commercial development), "middle" (1.5-3 years), "junior" (minimal experience but with relevant education), later supplemented by "trainee" (no experience, no completed relevant education).

But 15-20 years passed — and everything changed beyond recognition. Newcomers (trainees and juniors) are now powerless and even suspicious. They're a sort of "untermensch" of the IT labor market, rejected by automated letters with standardized phrases ("Unfortunately, we're not ready to invite you to the next stage at this time..."), often without reading cover letters or even resumes themselves.

Why Did This Happen?

First, because previously junior mistakes were seen as part of the process. Mentors guided newcomers, corrected code, explained what could and couldn't be done. Companies built learning buffers. Then everything changed. Applications became more complex, users more demanding, architectures more fragile. Any error threatens to break microservices or crash CI/CD pipelines.

Second, metrics and KPIs emerged. Each tech lead now has their own workload, deadlines, reporting. Training juniors doesn't factor into productivity metrics anymore. Newcomer mistakes only count as negatives.

Third, HR separated from engineering. Previously, tech leads hired directly, assessing strengths and weaknesses personally. Now HR managers search for "checkboxes" — GitHub, experience, tech stack — without appetite for risk.

Fourth, routine work increasingly gets done by AI, templates, or libraries. Newcomers — traditionally trained on simple tasks — now find those tasks gone while entry barriers skyrocket.

Most importantly, business mindset shifted to demanding results immediately: "hire, execute, close task." Training became viewed not as a necessary production cycle component, but as inappropriate charity or risky human investment.

The Real Problem

Today's companies hunt for pre-trained talent from competitors rather than developing their own. Even when hundreds of newcomers flood hiring pipelines, few succeed. Those turned down repeatedly face impossible choices: either accept poverty wages at struggling startups with broken projects and no mentorship, or fabricate experience.

This "system" breeds resume inflation — newcomers claiming fake projects as commercial work, padding experience. But this reflects systemic failure, not individual dishonesty. Playing by honest rules means invisible rejection at initial screening.

Job Market Reality

Consider a real junior position offering 40,000 rubles requiring: C#, .NET, MS SQL backend; Vue.js, JavaScript frontend; Kotlin mobile development; B2B and B2C production experience; analytics and reporting systems knowledge. That's essentially demanding middle fullstack developer expertise plus Android and business analytics knowledge for provincial server-level wages. The mobile HH app shows 978 applicants for this impossible position.

Paths Into IT (None Adequate)

Entry positions split across several inadequate channels:

• Hackathon winners and olympiad competitors (selective)
• Grinding freelance + open source + side gigs (exhausting)
• Resume deception (risky)
• Direct connections and nepotism (rare)
• Internal transfers within the same company (if lucky)

No massive infrastructure exists for entry from zero experience.

Bootcamps: Pseudo-Solutions

Online IT courses and bootcamps have boomed since 2020, promising careers in three months and "guaranteed employment." However, HR professionals distrust bootcamp graduates as surface-level learners. The real problem: bootcamp curricula prioritize limited practical skills over deep engineering fundamentals and conceptual thinking that distinguished Soviet education.

The HR Problem

Entry barriers for developers reach the sky; for HR professionals, they're ground level. Hiring managers need only look presentable, speak well, and know MS Office basics. Nobody invests seriously in HR training. Many HR professionals — untrained, risk-averse — get evaluated on processing volume: handle 500 applications, reject 490, pass 10 upward, hire 1-2 safest candidates.

Yet this reflects management failure. Executives often lack engineering backgrounds, coming from sales, government, finance, MBA programs. The "system" optimizes risk avoidance rather than talent identification.

Systemic Conclusion

Russian IT — even state enterprises — abandoned developing internal talent for poaching from competitors. Major corporations (Sber, Yandex, VK) imported Western pseudo-effective methodologies without question. Import substitution rhetoric changed nothing.

This injustice extends beyond career opportunity for talented newcomers. It raises fundamental questions: "Where are we headed? What's our relationship to people?" The system built by "efficient managers" proves not merely ineffective but deeply inequitable.