Having previous work experience, even if it's a part time menial job, is necessary in finding a job straight out of school.

Most people ask for prior work experience because what that prior work experience teaches them something they can then apply to future jobs. That or they're just ageist, but that's not as interesting.

I do agree with you that it prior work experience, wherever it might be, is necessary.

However, I think it is wrongheaded that it is necessary; and, yes, I realize how defiant this sounds, but I’m going to try to back it up.

The first question I would like to ask is this person at a menial job learned that someone who didn't have a menial job failed to learn. Is this lesson the person who worked the menial job important? That largely depends on what the current position is all about. If it is a job that requires creativity, and a large amount of independent action, I don't see what the menial job provided them that would help them. If the job where there is no latitude, and requires following a strict process, the most you'll get out of that experience is that the person was able to learn some strict process in the past and stick with it enough to be productive. This is weak information.

You could argue that it instills in a person a strong work ethic, but they either have that or they don't. Even if they do, it may not be enough to overcome the doldrums of a menial, repetitive job, and they might become extremely bored and disenchanted. Given greater creative latitude, they might do quite well, and nothing about the menial job experience would tell you whether they will or won't.

You could also argue that it’s more about learning how to work with a team, and within an organization. These both can be learned from a variety of situations, from extracurriculars to whatever. The aspect of this you might learn specific to employment is how to accept an organization as it is, and work within the confines of that. I think the acceptance of this has to do more with personality than with experience. I’ve been working within hierarchical organizations off and on through my years, and they still annoy me. I don’t think more years will change that.

As for general work experience, it is a relatively weak indicator. I'm not saying people don't use it, but I am saying that it does not correlate well to skills and ability. Like a degree, it is just a pointer to years where the person was supposedly doing some particular task. They might not have been, or they might have been doing it just well enough to avoid termination. They might have been the star of the department. Who knows. Years do not translate into relative ability or talent, and there is data to back this up. As a quality test, it sucks; but it is easy, and is considered enough of a "best practice" that no one will get fired for hiring an employee on that basis at most large companies, especially the ones that care more about decorum than productivity.

Passion and talent are much better indicators. But neither of these are evident from years of working experience. Someone who is six months in to their first job may outperform someone who’s been doing the work for over twenty years. And someone who has twenty years may not care worth a damn about what they do. It is possible to test for these independent of years of experience, and I think a far more worthwhile way of finding someone capable.

And sorry for the rant, this bit of default hiring wisdom has always annoyed me.