Ok, before I go and offend a bunch of people, let me explain that I'm describing how things are, not how they should be. A lot of the aspects of the business world that I'm about to describe are morally wrong and deeply disgusting. I'm not defending those.
First, technology is a lot less ageist than mainstream business (i.e. BDC-land).
Here's the thing about corporate culture. Anyone or anything (a group, a project) that is judged to be not successful (regardless of reason, regardless of whether it's that person's or group's fault) is avoided like a corpse. What ageism is about is the (often unfair) negativity directed at people judged to have underperformed their age curve. In mainstream business, there's an expectation that a person will be in an informal leadership role no later than 32, be in an official leadership role (i.e. manager or executive) by 35, be a VP by 40, (S|E)VP by 45, and CxO by 50.
Here's where sciences and technology have an edge. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a non-managerial programmer, scientist, or mathematician at 40, or even at 60. The best tend to peak later (with a few notable exceptions) so most of them are just starting to do their best work at this age. I repeat, there's nothing wrong in technology with being non-managerial at 40. No one looks down on you for that if you're great at what you do.
Contrast: in mainstream business, if you're still at the analyst/associate level doing line work at 40, no one will want to talk to you. Most investment banks have one "adult analyst" (i.e. someone in his late 20s or 30s working alongside college kids who use "steak sauce" as an accolade) and his co-workers mock the hell out of him behind his back.
There is a catch: by 35, you have to be really good, and you should probably have more than one specialty in which you can out-perform 99% of the competition. By that age, it's not enough to just be talented; you need to come with a seriously formidable skill set. The upside of this is that in technology, working hard and working smart means you will be good. The technology career is quite volatile but it's pretty easy to have reliable, steady improvements in one's level of skill. This is a lot better than mainstream business (banking, biglaw) where people can be passed over for no reason at all.
First, technology is a lot less ageist than mainstream business (i.e. BDC-land).
Here's the thing about corporate culture. Anyone or anything (a group, a project) that is judged to be not successful (regardless of reason, regardless of whether it's that person's or group's fault) is avoided like a corpse. What ageism is about is the (often unfair) negativity directed at people judged to have underperformed their age curve. In mainstream business, there's an expectation that a person will be in an informal leadership role no later than 32, be in an official leadership role (i.e. manager or executive) by 35, be a VP by 40, (S|E)VP by 45, and CxO by 50.
Here's where sciences and technology have an edge. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a non-managerial programmer, scientist, or mathematician at 40, or even at 60. The best tend to peak later (with a few notable exceptions) so most of them are just starting to do their best work at this age. I repeat, there's nothing wrong in technology with being non-managerial at 40. No one looks down on you for that if you're great at what you do.
Contrast: in mainstream business, if you're still at the analyst/associate level doing line work at 40, no one will want to talk to you. Most investment banks have one "adult analyst" (i.e. someone in his late 20s or 30s working alongside college kids who use "steak sauce" as an accolade) and his co-workers mock the hell out of him behind his back.
There is a catch: by 35, you have to be really good, and you should probably have more than one specialty in which you can out-perform 99% of the competition. By that age, it's not enough to just be talented; you need to come with a seriously formidable skill set. The upside of this is that in technology, working hard and working smart means you will be good. The technology career is quite volatile but it's pretty easy to have reliable, steady improvements in one's level of skill. This is a lot better than mainstream business (banking, biglaw) where people can be passed over for no reason at all.