Are you sure about this? I tend to think of a Systems Programmer as one who is more skilled in a particular area of the stack (closer to the OS). For example I wouldn't generally hire a self described "Web Programmer" to work on the guts of VMWare if I worked there. Sure, a good programmer can pick up on that stuff but a good programmer can also pick up basket weaving, it doesn't mean basket weaving is a useless career limiting hr invented categorization.
I wouldn't generally hire a self described "Web Programmer" to work on the guts of VMWare if I worked there.
When people describe themselves as something, it is to indicate what they are interested in doing. Hiring a self-titled "Web Programmer" to do VMWare work is probably not a good fit, not interesting for them. But it is not unreasonable to find that they are capable of doing the work if they wanted to. We need to be careful about categorizations.
I see your point about basket weaving, but when I went to school, I did not see a class for it in my CS curriculum, and I also did not see "systems programmer 101" or "web development 101". These are applications. In CS, we learn how to navigate in all these fields, whatever their rules... that is, out in the field, we can learn enough of basket weaving to create a software model for it. The point is that we can solve the problem in software.
Really, it is because of this nonsense that I gave up on recruiters entirely and learned to go directly to the technical hiring managers. The good ones do not use requirements checklists with bullet points like "knows C++", "has programmed in linux", and "knows basket weaving".
Edit addition: This thinking would be career-limiting on me because I have adopted a mindset that boxes me in, focusing in the wrong things.
I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make. If someone self-titles with "Web Programmer", and by your own admission that denotes an interest level than that seems like its limiting their career in a way they desire. The OP is refers to himself as a Systems Programmer which seems to fit just fine into your definition of self-titles.
This sounds much more like you're projecting frustration with recruiters rather than making a useful point on categorization.
For point 3, I think it's a benefit. I sell myself as a particular kind of programming specifically because I do not want to work on lame projects that don't interest me at all. I think it's perfectly valid to self-identify as a "systems programmer" or "web programmer" because, unless you're under certain situations, you probably don't want any ol' programming job. These days I even specify what languages I want to work in because I'm so nitpicky.
At the University of Maryland College Park, Systems Programming is, or was, course CMSC 415. Maybe you should have gone to a better school or, more likely, have paid attention when you were there.
And who are you to patronize other people because of their university choices? The university I went to didn't have a systems programming specific course either. So what's the deal here? The only good university is the University of Maryland College Park?
He made a good point, people often dismiss candidates because they see some buzzword they don't like. A good programmer is a good programmer regardless of what he calls him/herself. It's more important to assess a programmers competence, desires, and fit within a company than discriminate on what "type" of programming you think he should be doing.
I have never heard of University of Maryland College Park.
I had a course in OSes. And a course in databases. And a course in graphics. And a course on compiler design. So on and so forth. All part of the curriculum. They taught us to be computer scientists, not systems programmers or web engineers or whatever fancy title is nice. I should add that the university I attended is one of the top in the US for CS.
Also, in interviewing candidates, I did see that there are several schools that do teach about the toys rather than about CS. I generally ignore that and look for good developer qualities instead.
Your second sentence is pretty personally insulting, beyond the call of simply disagreeing with me. Please consider an edit?
