Why the "2-4 Years" For Entry-Level Positions Doesn't Mean Much.

     Most of you have probably seen a job posting like this:

Company: Random Company
Position: Entry-Level Marketing Assistant
Responsibilities: Copying, faxing, answering the phone, other duties that anyone can learn in less than a day.
Skills: Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer
Experience: 2 - 4 Years

     Drives you nuts doesn't it? How can they put "2-4 years" of experience in a job posting that's clearly marked "Entry-Level"? Doesn't entry-level mean the lowest position to enter into a company?

     So what now? Do you just forget this posting as you don't have the 2-4 years of experience? Do you write the hiring manager a semi-threatening/semi-pitiful letter about how unjust their requirements are? Do you move to another country, hoping that the 2-4 year experience isn't an entry-level requirement? Of course not.

     If you know you can do the job, and can show it in your resume, just apply.

     For some reason, people seem to think that if they don't have the required years of experience for a job, they won't ever have a chance to get the job. That's completely untrue. If you see an ad that lists responsibilities that you know you can do well, apply. It doesn't matter if you have the years of experience they want or not. What hiring managers want to see is whether or not someone can do the job. Plain and simple. Years of experience doesn't always equate to better job performance. If you can show on your resume that you can do the job, you'll be considered for the position, regardless of whether you have the 2-4 years or not.

Search Post

Label :