This is a submission for the 2026 WeCoded Challenge: Echoes of Experience
Tech loves to call itself meritocratic.
We like to believe the best ideas win. The hardest workers rise. The most curious people find their place.
I want that to be true.
But the longer I spend around this industry, the harder it is to ignore something uncomfortable:
Not everyone gets to be a beginner in the same way.
Some people are allowed to learn in public.
They can ask awkward questions. Build messy things. Say "I do not know yet" and still be seen as capable. Their mistakes are treated like part of the process. Their rough edges are seen as potential.
Other people do the exact same thing and get judged immediately.
Their mistakes are not seen as growth. They are seen as proof.
Proof that they do not belong. Proof that they are not technical enough. Proof that they are somehow behind in a race that others were allowed to run while still learning.
That difference is quiet, but it changes everything.
It changes who speaks up.
Who posts.
Who asks questions.
Who applies.
Who stays.
A lot of people in tech are not just trying to get better at coding.
They are also trying to survive the feeling that every mistake costs extra.
That kind of pressure does something to you.
It makes you smaller.
It makes you overthink simple questions.
It makes you rewrite messages three times before pressing send.
It makes you feel like you have to arrive polished, because being unfinished does not feel safe.
And that is the part I do not think we talk about enough.
We talk a lot about access in tech. Courses, tools, AI, open source, tutorials.
But access is only the first step.
Feeling allowed to stay is something else.
Because what keeps people in this industry is not just ambition.
Sometimes it is one patient reply.
One kind mentor.
One room that does not make them feel stupid for being early.
One moment where they are treated like a person with potential instead of a problem to evaluate.
I think that is part of what gender equity in tech really asks from us.
Not just to open the door.
But to change what happens after someone walks through it.
Who gets patience?
Who gets generosity?
Who gets to be unfinished without being quietly dismissed?
Some people get to grow in public.
Others learn to hide until they are good enough to be safe.
And I think tech loses a lot of brilliant people in that silence.
Not because they lacked talent.
But because the cost of being a beginner was made too high
Top comments (32)
You're right — and it doesn't stop at the beginner stage. The same mechanism follows people throughout their careers. The judgment just gets repackaged: "not a culture fit", "too opinionated", "hard to manage." Different words, same toxicity.
What you describe isn't a phase of learning. It's a structural bias that some people never fully escape, no matter how much experience they accumulate.
that is a really important point.
Sometimes the language just changes as people move forward in their careers, but the underlying dynamic stays the same. What starts as being judged for "not knowing enough yet" can later turn into labels like the ones you mention.
And once those labels appear, they can be hard to shake, even when the person's work is solid.
I’m curious, have you seen that happen around you in teams or organizations you’ve been part of?
Yes, I've seen it — and I've probably done it myself at some point, out of frustration or impatience. I think the impulse to label is very human. The damage stays manageable as long as it stays private and occasional.
The real problem starts when it becomes a shared belief. When the label circulates, gets validated by the group, and turns into consensus. At that point it stops being a judgment and becomes a fact — and facts are much harder to challenge.
That's when the structural bias you describe really locks in.
that’s a really good way to put it.
The moment a label turns into shared consensus, it becomes much harder for the person to escape it, no matter how their work evolves.
And like you said, the scary part is how quietly that shift can happen.
I wonder how often teams even realize they’re doing it.
Rarely, in my experience. And that's the most insidious part — it doesn't feel like bias when you're inside it. It feels like collective common sense. "We all know that Bob is difficult." Nobody remembers where that started.
Which is why it's so hard to fight. You're not arguing against a decision. You're arguing against an atmosphere.
And what we tend to forget — or refuse to see — is that Bob might be us. Or our partner. Or our kid trying to break into the industry.
The bias feels abstract until it's personal. And by then, it's usually too late to pretend it's not structural.
“Arguing against an atmosphere” is exactly what it feels like sometimes. Once something becomes that shared background belief, it stops feeling like an opinion and starts feeling like reality.
And I like your point about how it only becomes visible when it gets personal. Until then, it’s easy to think the system is neutral.
I wonder how often teams could interrupt that earlier if someone simply asked, “Where did that label actually come from?”
That question is rarely asked because asking it implies that the consensus might be wrong — and that makes people uncomfortable. It can read as defending someone unpopular, or as undermining the team's judgment.
So even people who sense the label is unfair often stay quiet. The social cost of challenging an atmosphere is higher than the social cost of maintaining it.
Which is probably why it persists.
Great point, challenging the atmosphere often comes with a social cost, and most people instinctively avoid being the one who disrupts the group’s comfort. So even if someone quietly doubts the label, it’s easier to go along with it than to question it.
And that silence is probably what lets those dynamics keep repeating.
I wonder how often someone in the room actually notices the unfairness but decides it’s safer not to say anything.
well put, Pascal 💯
Excellent observation, very true
Well said ... can't escape bringing up the whole "AI makes the juniors disappear" discussion which might make matters even worse for people aspiring to join the field?
Yeah, definitely. I think AI risks making this even worse.
If companies expect people to show up already productive, already polished, and already "AI-accelerated," then the space to be new gets even smaller.
That is what worries me most. Not just fewer junior roles, but less patience for being early in the process.
Spot on - you can almost see it as a form of gatekeeping, especially since schools/colleges and bootcamps (formal education) aren't yet preparing people for these new realities (at least not that I know of) - so, people are supposed to scramble learning this stuff in their own private time, while also paying for costs of AI tools/tokens - raising barriers to entry in a way not directly related to innate talent ...
That is a big part of it.
The expectation shifts quietly and suddenly "entry level" means you should already know how to use a whole stack of new tools, pay for them yourself, and somehow keep up outside formal education too.
At that point it stops being just about talent or effort. It starts becoming about who can afford the extra time, money, and access.
Yes, the gap between the haves and the have-nots widening while we aren't looking, it happens all too easily ...
That is what makes it so worrying.
It is not always loud or obvious. Sometimes the bar just keeps moving upward in small ways, and suddenly the people with less time, less money, or less access are pushed further out without anyone saying it directly.
Have you noticed that shift more in hiring, or in how people are expected to learn on their own now?
Haven't seen it personally, but I believe it nonetheless ... as long as there are more jobs than applicants it's all pretty okay of course, but that lies behind us I'm afraid!
(could come back of course, but never in exactly the same way)
Yeah, I think that is part of it too.
When the market was hotter, there was more room for potential. Now that things feel tighter, I think a lot of companies fall back into safer, narrower hiring instincts.
And like you said, even if demand picks up again, it probably will not come back in quite the same form. What feels "entry level" has already shifted.
Nailed it - but how it all pans out, we'll only know for sure in a few years from now, there's always hope ...
that’s true. A lot of this is still unfolding.
I try not to be overly pessimistic about it. Markets shift, tools change, and sometimes new patterns create new openings we didn’t expect.
I just hope that as things evolve, we stay conscious of who might be getting squeezed out quietly in the process.
This is such a profound observation. We often talk about 'lowering the barrier to entry,' but we rarely talk about lowering the cost of making a mistake. The psychological safety to be 'unfinished' is a privilege that isn't distributed equally, and you've articulated that tension beautifully. True equity isn't just about getting people into the room; it’s about ensuring they don’t have to be perfect just to prove they belong there. Thank you for sharing this
That’s a really powerful way to put it, lowering the cost of making a mistake.
I think a lot of people in tech genuinely want to lower barriers, but we often forget that the environment still expects beginners to perform like they’re already experienced.
Psychological safety is a huge part of learning, and without it, “just try things and break stuff” stops being good advice.
Really appreciate you sharing that perspective.
It is a necessary introspection. There are different aspects to measure success . 1) Me and Myself - am I happy at what I am doing - from solving a business problems, enhancing my horizon of knowledge technical, functional, in the domain I work for. It would take care of your job, career, earning to some extent, if not as best as another impressive colleague or class-mate.
That’s a thoughtful perspective. I really like how you frame success around the impact you have on the people who actually use what you build.
Thirty-five years hands-on in tech and still staying curious about new tools is impressive. I also agree with your last point, tech culture highlights a few exceptional stories, but there are thousands of engineers quietly doing meaningful work for decades.
Those careers matter just as much. Thanks for sharing your experience.
Well said! I love your articles. It is so true
Thank you Benjamin! It means alot!
welcome!
This is an interesting observation. When you say some people are not “allowed to be beginners in public”, who do you feel this applies to the most in tech? Gender, juniors, people from non-traditional backgrounds, or something else?
I think it can hit several groups at once, honestly.
Women in tech, juniors, people from non-traditional backgrounds, career switchers, and anyone who already feels a bit "outside" the default image of who a developer is.
The common thread is that some people get treated like they are still becoming, while others get treated like they need to prove they belong before they are given the same patience.
thanks NorthernDev...yeah it's a thing i've noticed as well.. thanks for the great article 💯
Thanks Aaron! And thanks for reading!
Some comments may only be visible to logged-in visitors. Sign in to view all comments.