Ive some questions regarding the top 10 schools and their emphasis on work experience
I know a mixture of high quantity and quality is sought after; I constantly see people having worked as consultants/client managers/account managers and even CEO's of smaller companies coupled with 3+ years of WE here on the forum.
This, to put it lightly, scares the crap out of me. Why? Because even though I indeed have had 3 years of WE, I havent had a flashy job nor have I had the posibility to get promoted at my employers' (for explainable reasons, one of them being how immensely "flat" the org Ive worked in has been).
Ive worked at a small, local bank as a customer administrator for these roughly 36 months. My description entails taking care of customer errends, such as withdrawals/deposits, card issuing, problem solving pertaining to the aforementioned or other similar operations. A pretty basic job that isnt highly qualified at all. But Ive worked there since I was 18, I just turned 24 (obviously, I havent worked there continiously for these years, Im from a Nordic country and the MO here sort of is to go to college at 20-21 which I did. This is also partly the reason to not getting promoted, still the company I work at employs me every summer giving me 2+ months of work experience each year)
My question to whomever has the knowledge is: is this a far too weak a work resume? Would I - all else equal - be dinged just for the fact that there are so many applicants out there that on paper have a more qualified description? Is there THAT much emphasis on "type of position/promotion/explicit examples of leadership shown in relation to work" put by the elite schools, that I simply get sort of laughed at when they read my resume as they throw it in the nearest bin?
I know this sounds sorta depressing, Im not depressed
Just trying to give myself the blessing of what i fairly can expect, given THIS specific part of my background (I know an application entails more than WE)