Hi,I have been at my current employer for 2 years, having started with them fresh out of university.I am currently looking for new jobs, but I am uncertain as to whether I am now a professional/experienced hire, or whether prospective employers will still consider me to be at entry level.Please could somebody clarify which category the majority of employers would classify me under.Thanks,dk

Eh...I think you'll find you have two years experience - that means you should be looking for jobs where the ad says something like, " applicants should have 2 to 4 years experience of (insert skill or industry)."Take a look at the most recent garduate intake and make a list of three or four things that you can do that they cannot (hopefully as a result of your two years experience). This list should be the basis of your applications (and interviews when they arrive)No one hires graduates because of what they can do or what they have learned (few people ever apply the content of their degree! its just a badge to say you're capable of learning!). They hire them to learn while doing basic-level work (exactly what depends on the firm/role/industry)In the same way few "2 year" people are not hired because they are experts, but because they have started to show an understanding of a specific area. Lets imagine you've done three projects in the last two years - the best chance of a new job is to leverage the direct experience of one or more of those projects, so if you're done two credit card projects and a telecoms one, your only going to be able badge yourself as a "2-year" hire in those areas. Otherwise you'll come across as "grad level knowledge" but at "2-year level" salary demand. No ta good combo.

Would 40k after two years be realistic?

Take this advice the right way - I had the benefit of a very clever and direct mentor in my early career and he both amused and educated me by telling me when I was being an idiot. By taking his advice I was earning 100K by the time I was 29 (and that was ten years ago). I hope my well meant comments sting you the way his comments stung me (into thinking differently)Unless you are somehow stuck in a timewarp whereby you believe yourself to be a serf apprentice in the 13th century, do yourself a favour and stop relating your salary to your years of experience.Your salary should be calculated as your fair share of the spoils that you generate through your skills. Who gives a flying f@*k how old you are.To establish whether you are worth 40K a year, work out what other people doing your job are getting (no matter what their age). Consider the fees you are generating for your firm. Consider who would do your job if you fell under a bus (would it be someone more senior than you or someone more junior - senior is good, it suggests that you are being underpaid). Are you enabling your firm to bill other people because of your leadership? Do you have skills that are in high demand and short supply.If you offered to review my business and charge me a 100K in return for £2M benefits, about the last things I'd care about is how old you are. I'd want to know how you were goignt o do it, how legal it was, when I'd get the cash, when I'fd have to pay you, etc - BUT NOT whether you were eligible for a young person railcard.Last time my income was related to my age was when my mum was paying me pocket money and it went up every year on my birthday!Oh, and if you ever have a manager or a company that tries to tell you they can't pay you a certain amount "at your age", LEAVE as soon as your can get a job with a proper company that focuses on profit more than civil-service-grade-and-age-process.Now as my mentor used to say "do you want to answer your own question?"

Good advice, thank you. Would be great if this place was full of that sort of thing and not the normal time wasters.