It is known (and proven) that most people grossly overestimate their experience and abilities.
In software development it is even more egregious because, due to exponential growth of number of developers, most developers haven't had a chance to work with a real, good, expert developer.
You need probably at least 10-15 years and more realistically about 20 years to grow to be expert at your field. And even then only small percentage grow to be truly experts, the rest become stuck somewhere along the way.
How do you asses whether you are mentor material if you've never seen a real deal?
You don't hear people who decided they are not mentor material yet -- you only hear from people who did.
So this is the false positive problem -- given even small chance of false positive on deciding you are mentor material, given huge population of developers and very small population of actual good mentors, you are bound to have a lot of false positives.
Exponential growth also pushes down the time when you need to become a mentor.
If the field was totally stable (retirement rate = graduation rate, and everyone retires after 40 years in the field, greatly simplified model), then each new joiner could be paired with a mentor of 20 years experience, and only needs to become a mentor after 20 years. But if the field is growing exponentially, the age drops significantly. I'm sure someone could calculate this; it's almost like the inverse of the retirement age, population change, and social security question
The term has simply gotten diluted, just like the phrases "good at math" or "being good with computers" can mean I can do basic addition mentally and I can setup your email software. It's not a fight worth fighting as people will tend to find the path of least resistance that gives them the most gains. Its the opposite of the imposter syndrome, also the 'fake it till you make it' mantra. IMO, its not really that bad in s/w dev because "Talk is cheap, show me the code".
- have the experience to have had enough time to observe things in reality (vs theory) and have had the time to internalise and digest all of this
- be mature
While it is easy to get the knowledge, the rest usually cannot be skipped so easily.
As to math, that is not a good example. Math is almost pure knowledge and intelligence and so a bright kid can acquire that knowledge and quickly pass to his peers assuming they are intelligent enough.
Unless you really mean Mathematics. Like how to advance the field. Then it is not as easily transferable knowledge. I know, I studied theoretical mathematics.
Software development is only in small part driven by knowledge. If you think software development is knowing programming languages and frameworks and AWS and certifications you are waaaay off the target.
I think your advice holds for people who are well on their way into their careers, but even with someone with half the years of experience (i.e. 7-10 years) can be invaluable to someone starting out in the field.
I don't think I would've been able to right my career had I not had a dev with about ten years experience mentor me for a year. Granted, he might be an edge case since he learned teaching before becoming a programmer, but nonetheless his empathy and encouragement on top of some lived experiences was invaluable to me.
I have this model where you can get regular help with what you want and mentor help with what you need.
Mentor will be mature and experienced enough to be able to recognise your particular needs and be able to adjust to you. Mentor will be able to understand their own limitations and adjust for it, too.
On one hand I agree with you that experience matters a lot, and is often undervalued by SV/VC youth-worshipping culture. There's no substitute for having seen many different ways of doing things, the effect of decisions as technology ecosystems evolve over time, and the underlying human dynamics that drive outcomes in any large-scale human endeavor.
On the other hand, experience is mostly orthogonal to technical and pedagogical skills. After decades of experience I've seen mentorship come in many forms, and I would never put some kind of litmus test on who is qualified to be a mentor. Ultimately it's about individual strengths, weaknesses and chemistry.
In software development it is even more egregious because, due to exponential growth of number of developers, most developers haven't had a chance to work with a real, good, expert developer.
You need probably at least 10-15 years and more realistically about 20 years to grow to be expert at your field. And even then only small percentage grow to be truly experts, the rest become stuck somewhere along the way.
How do you asses whether you are mentor material if you've never seen a real deal?
You don't hear people who decided they are not mentor material yet -- you only hear from people who did.
So this is the false positive problem -- given even small chance of false positive on deciding you are mentor material, given huge population of developers and very small population of actual good mentors, you are bound to have a lot of false positives.