Age in the IT industry is an uncomfortable topic because it combines two things that are rarely separable in a recruitment conversation: “hard” parameters (cost, risk, role fit) and “soft” stereotypes (energy, flexibility, learning ability). On top of that, IT effectively has two parallel labor markets: one “product-driven” (startup-like, fast, often culturally young) and another “infrastructure-corporate” (enterprise, stability, processes, technical debt). Age tends to become an issue in the former much earlier than in the latter—but it does not act as a magical cutoff. Rather, it functions as a friction multiplier.
It is worth starting with a sober distinction: in practice, recruitment processes do not “punish” chronological age uniformly. What they react to—fairly or not—are the things employers associate with age: expected salary, work style, willingness to change, risk of rapid turnover, and sometimes simply “not a cultural fit,” a safe euphemism.
What Age in IT Actually Looks Like — A Few Facts Before the Myths
First: older specialists in IT are not a marginal group. According to Eurostat, in 2024 the majority of ICT specialists in the EU were aged 35+, an increase compared to 2014. This indicates that the industry is genuinely maturing demographically rather than remaining a permanent club of twenty-somethings.
Second: the image of the industry in media and surveys is often younger than reality. In community-based surveys such as those conducted by Stack Overflow, the largest group of professional developers is typically aged 25–34, with older cohorts clearly underrepresented. This is not evidence that older professionals do not exist—rather, that not everyone participates equally in the same channels and communities.
Third: Poland is not an exception to the European trend. Materials from Polish Investment and Trade Agency, based on Eurostat data, indicate that in Poland the majority of ICT specialists fall within the 35–74 age group, and this share is increasing.
A conclusion that is often overlooked: if a significant portion of the IT market consists of professionals aged 35+, then “age itself” cannot be a simple barrier. The problem emerges only when an individual enters a segment of the market shaped by specific prejudices and economic incentives.
When Age Starts to Be a Problem — and What “Problem” Means
A “problem” can take three forms, which rarely occur together:
- Access problem: fewer interview invitations, longer unemployment after layoffs, lower CV → interview conversion.
- Negotiation position problem: pressure to lower expectations, less attractive projects, “senior without senior pay.”
- Channel mismatch problem: certain firms recruit informally (through networks) or filter culturally, reinforcing bias.
Here it helps to rely on solid research rather than anecdotes. A field experiment on the labor market—sending thousands of fictitious CVs with randomly assigned ages—showed that employer callback rates can start declining as early as “around 40+,” and become very low close to retirement age. The authors point to stereotypes about learning ability, flexibility, and ambition.
At the same time, research from Eurofound shows that age discrimination remains relevant both in recruitment and employment, and that returning to the labor market after a break is particularly difficult for older individuals.
This leads to a practical criterion: age becomes a problem when the cost of “proving you are up to date” rises. A younger candidate is more often assumed to be current by default; an older candidate must demonstrate it more explicitly.
For Whom It Is a Real Problem — Typical Risk Profiles
Saying “after 40” is intellectually lazy. In IT, age hurts mainly at the intersection of market position and career stage.
1) Someone aged 30–45 switching into IT and aiming for junior roles
This is often the most difficult case—not because the industry “dislikes older people,” but because the economics of junior roles are unforgiving: high onboarding costs, uncertain productivity, high turnover, and underlying salary pressure.
If someone is 38 and applies for a junior role, a recruiter often (even subconsciously) asks:
- – Will they accept junior pay and a 12–18 month learning curve?
- – Will they be frustrated by limited autonomy?
- – Will they leave after six months because they need to earn more?
This may not be fair—but it is common. It can be mitigated, though the signals must be concrete: a portfolio, even small commercial practice, open-source contributions, real team projects—not just courses.
2) A 35–45 specialist with continuous IT experience
In this group, age is rarely the primary issue. The issue is more often segment: product companies with a culture of “young energy” may filter based on work style (at least that is how it is framed). Enterprise environments, in contrast, value delivery history, stability, and process fluency.
If friction appears, it is often financial: the employer compares cost to a “good enough” mid-level candidate, not to an ideal benchmark.
3) A 45–55 senior individual contributor (IC)
Here risk increases, as does the gap between how the market values experience and how some firms value speed and tech novelty. Typical mechanisms are predictable:
- concern about an “outdated stack” (even if unfounded),
- assumptions about reduced flexibility (often stereotypical),
- cost pressure (more grounded economically),
- the presumption that “they should already be a manager.”
As a result, experienced professionals may be pushed toward lead/manager roles even if they prefer to remain ICs. This is a classic case where age becomes a problem not of competence, but of role expectations.
4) 55+ (or near) re-entering the market after a break
Two forces overlap: general age discrimination and the risk of gaps in tools and practices. Additionally, social perception reinforces the difficulty. In a European Commission Eurobarometer survey (2015), 56% of respondents considered age 55+ a disadvantage for job candidates.
In practice, the most effective paths here minimize random CV filtering: contract/B2B work, referrals, consulting, niche expertise (legacy systems, security, infrastructure, regulated industries).
Why Companies Discriminate by Age — Brutally but Usefully
Experimental research suggests that employers may rely on stereotypes about learning ability, flexibility, or ambition. In real-world settings, economics adds further layers:
- Cost of employment: higher (or assumed higher) salary expectations.
- Fit risk: “Will they adapt to our pace and culture?”
- Process risk: the more chaotic the company, the more it relies on heuristics.
- Political risk: a more experienced specialist may identify organizational weaknesses more quickly and be less tolerant of “startup fog.”
Age discrimination is also hard to prove, as it is rarely explicit—and evidentiary mechanisms in such cases are complex even in mature legal systems.
Law Says One Thing, Practice Another
At the EU level, age discrimination in employment is addressed under Directive 2000/78/EC (equal treatment in employment and occupation). In Poland, labor law also prohibits discrimination based on age.
However, legal protection does not guarantee practical immunity. Market reality works differently: the more competitive the role and the less structured the hiring process, the easier it is for selection to rely on cognitive shortcuts rather than rigorous evaluation.
Where Age Matters More — and Less
Age-related recruitment friction is unevenly distributed.
It tends to matter more:
- in small product companies hiring “for the team” and “for culture” (often informally),
- in roles driven by rapid shifts in fashionable technologies,
- in firms seeking “cheap energy” to push sprints rather than stability.
It tends to matter less:
- in structured organizations with formal processes and standards,
- in infrastructure, security, reliability, data, and system integration roles,
- in regulated industries where compliance, auditability, and accountability dominate,
- in environments where technical debt and modernization are constant realities.
This explains why the same candidate may be “too old” for one startup yet highly attractive in another segment.
What Actually Works for 35+ (Beyond Motivational Slogans)
If age starts functioning as a filter, the sensible strategy is not “appearing younger,” but reducing employer uncertainty.
- Highlight recent practice, not total tenure. The last 12–24 months of delivered work (deployments, migrations, optimizations, incidents and lessons learned) often matter more than “20 years of experience.”
- Show learning as behavior, not declaration. A repository, case studies, a technical post, meetup presentations, relevant certification—anything verifiable for the role.
- Avoid signals of stagnation. Graduation dates are not inherently problematic, but a CV formatted as a chronological archive since 2006 invites bias. A project-focused narrative works better.
- Target roles where experience carries market premium. Modernization, architecture, security, reliability, integrations, compliance, stakeholder coordination—areas less driven by hype cycles.
- Build channels beyond standard ATS pipelines. The less random the CV filter, the less room for heuristics. Referrals, community presence, former clients, partners—often more effective in IT than mass applications.
Conclusion: Age Is Not a Verdict — But It Can Multiply Friction
There is no single threshold in IT after which “it’s over.” Age becomes a problem when it is used as a shortcut for estimating cost and risk—research suggests biases may emerge around 40+. At the same time, demographic data show that a large and growing share of ICT specialists are 35+.
Those most objectively exposed are older career switchers entering as juniors, professionals returning after long breaks, and senior ICs targeting companies that conflate speed with competence. Those least exposed are individuals with continuous experience, current proof of practice, and alignment with segments where experience is an asset rather than a suspicion.
And if someone insists that in IT “after 35 it’s over”… well. In some parts of the world equally blunt slogans exist (for example, China’s “curse of 35”), but that says more about specific market models than about human biology.