In the Indian IT industry, I have found that regardless of the candidate's skill level, filtering is done based on number of years of experience.
I have found that people with 5 years of work experience have appalling programming skills, general aptitude and intelligence. They are mostly people who did non-CS courses in college but not necessarily (sadly).
I think years of experience is a very marginal and unreliable indicator of the person's skill level. A person could have spent 5 years as a programmer doing mediocre to substandard work. But they are still considered a valuable candidate given the "experience certificate" they can produce. But that's the reality in India.
What is the general practice in the US and other countries? Do recruiters filter based on years of experience? If you are a recruiter and you understand the practice of filtering based on years of experience can you explain the logic behind this?
Edit: While I agree that experience trumps added qualifications (in terms of degrees), I don't think YEARS of experience - a document stating the same - is a reliable indicator of skill or maturity. That was my question. Indian IT recruitment works on certificates. I don't mean unheard of companies that trade on the sole fact that $1 = Rs.45. I've found this in companies like Oracle! The experience certificate qualifies you or doesn't for an interview.
Sure I GUESS you don't want to put a fresh out of college for a project management position. Even there I am no certain how heavily should experience weigh in qualifying candidates for consideration for recruitment.