There were slightly more L7 EMs than L7 SWEs every time I looked, but there's nuance to that. If the company decides it needs an L7 EM and nobody is available to promote, they'll hire externally. Your chances of being promoted into that role are reduced by the proportion of L7 EMs who were external hires. The other nuance is that those numbers don't correct for overall tenure, but I don't know how that would change things. Finally, getting to L7 EM is maybe 30% in your control and 70% circumstances, but that ratio is IMO inverted for ICs.

So even though there are more L7 EMs than SWEs, you might still have an easier time getting to L7 SWE, if you're ready to be an L7 SWE.

Your point about ageism is well-taken. I'm not yet old enough to really feel it, but I have heard it's rough.

> Finally, getting to L7 EM is maybe 30% in your control and 70% circumstances, but that ratio is IMO inverted for ICs.

That sounds like a positive. As an EM, there's a good chance you'll be promoted to L7 via pure luck - with no abnormal amounts of effort, and with no outstanding talent for management. It sucks if you're in the minority which "deserves" the promo (is super hard working and talented), but for everyone else, it's a free lottery ticket to a higher comp.

That's... not actually how that 30/70 statement is meant to be read.

Imagine as a simplified analogy, applying to get into Harvard. Imagine Harvard has 1000 spots to fill, and that there are 10,000 applicants with roughly equivalent credentials (because they all have: near perfect test scores, high GPAs, strong extracurriculars, etc.).

In that environment, one might conclude that, for people who successfully get into Harvard, it was 30% their own skill, and 70% "luck" that the they happen to be semi-randomly picked by the admissions committee who could've easily gone with a nearly-equivalent alternative.

So sure, in that environment, "luck" is a factor, but this is by no means a "free lottery ticket" because the near-equivalent applicants had to work hard and be smart to reach the point of being near-equivalents of each other... So it is with promotions in competitive tech companies at least, where good talent is the norm.

When an external hire happens, they don't truly know what they'll be like unless they've already worked with them, so they could actually be of a lower quality who lucked into it

I think digging into the roots of SWE's not being respected is worth discussing.

Are doctors, lawyers, or surgeons viewed the same way? I don't know those industries well enough to say. Some domains of software are very, very deep and require many years of study and practice.

It feels like the root of SWEs not being fully respected simply comes back to the fact that they aren't considered as part of the org as much as management is.

> I think digging into the roots of SWE's not being respected is worth discussing. Are doctors, lawyers, or surgeons viewed the same way?

Those are three very different things with different growth paths. But as someone who went from engineer to entrepreneur and is now on the product side, I can say that software people, almost as a rule, focus on stuff that doesn't matter for promotion. It's really frustrating sometimes.

Modulo pathological things like corporate politics, companies care about profit and loss. Grow the business, make the money roll in, and your chances of advancement approach unity. But far too many software people devote their time to "honing their tools", when, to the company, the entire tools budget is just a cost center. Identifying as a "tool person" at all just means that you're climbing a greasy pole. This is true even in "pure" software companies -- the difference between working on a business-critical initiative and, say, code-review tooling, can be everything to your career path.

Just to emphasize this point, consider the growth paths for the other careers you mentioned. Lawyers get paid well overall, but making partner depends on bringing in business. Surgeons and doctors are a bit more complex due to licensing scarcity, but if you know anyone in private practice, it's the same gig: get clients, grow the business. Meet the minimum threshold for technical competency, and nobody really cares if you're the best surgeon in the state, so long as you're bringing in patients.

The world revolves around money. Software is relevant only to the extent that it makes money.

Do you really respect doctors for growing their business? I would look down at a doctor whose mind is on money. When I really need a doctor, I sure do look for the best, not the one with the most patients.

your opinion of doctors is probably off. i'm married to a doctor (in the US) and i would say 4/5 doctors i meet spend most of their time talking and thinking about money. there are lots of reasons for this (some valid), but assume your doctor has money on the mind

Well, let's hope they still think of the interest of their patients first or that the incentives are aligned. Also, in the US, everything is more money oriented than in Europe which may explain the difference of views here. I grew up in a family of doctors and they didn't see their job as a business, but rather as a public service.

When I see a doctor, I kinda want them to be in their 30s/40s. If they're in their 60s it's been a long time since they've been to med school and while they have continuing-education requirements things do change

SWEs are generally speaking less respected (and compensated!) in Europe, but ageism is AFAICT much less prevalent. If I was in the US, it would be time for me to start worrying about it.

In my early 40s in the US, I try to stay close to deep tech companies that have profoundly hard problems. (The kind of stuff that eats juniors alive unless they have guidance.)

Even there, you kinda feel the org's Eye of Sauron looking at you wondering why you haven't ascended into the clergy of management sometimes.

Ageism doesn’t seem to apply so much at the higher levels. At my company I see many L7+ in the 50+ range.