However, what many employers may be looking for when they ask for “experience” is:

a) a lower bound on age which they are not allowed to explicitly state per many employment non-discrimination policies. The likelihood of young people having employed experience in their field is directly related to their age (of course with some exceptions).

b) not field-related skills, but “having a job”-related skills; punctuality, respect for authority and deadlines, paradigm loyalty, etc. These are skills critical to most job environments that are not automatically conferred with academic knowledge or natural smarts.

c) the amount of training in a similar company the person is likely to have received. School and/or independent study will only get you so far; the rest is socialization to the industry. It’s possible to trade up skills and experience somewhat, but the needs of, for example, big business are much different than small business or entrepreneurship; principles carry through, but most employers prefer to have their employees tested thoroughly beforehand to avoid having to pay them for mistakes.

I will go ahead and say that a) is definitely bullshit because it is hypocritical.

However, when saying that experience is neither necessary nor sufficient for success, we need to make sure we define success in order for this analysis to be valuable. For many employers, b) and c) are more important than individual employee brilliance, in which case, experience does supply a reasonable correlation to success. Just not to talent or intelligence.

I just wrote a blog post (coincidentally) about how to get a job with no experience. I talk about a strategy for using that personal connection to get around the HR person’s chopping block. Let me know what you think!

http://www.neilsattin.com/blog/2007/10/personal-development-how-to-get-a-job-when-you-have-no-experience/

p.s. I hope the Yanks get Obama across the line, too. I think he’s a giant of a man. And… the first black president? Go America!