Years are sometimes a better measurement of length of experience than they are a good indicator of experience quality; I'd be more concerned with accumulating quality experience than I would be with how cool I can make it sound.
One reservist may be in for a few years, volunteer for nothing, perform poorly when tasked/training, and do no credit to his unit. S/He can have 'a few years experience' in the reserves.
Another may be in for a few years, deploy somewhere, jump at every opportunity that comes his way, and do his unit great credit. S/He can have 'a few years experience' in the reserves.
One person may enroll in the Reg Force and, within four years, complete their trades training, deploy somewhere, earn their corporals. They have 4 years in.
Another person may enroll in the Reg Force and spend four years completing a degree (either in a quasi-military environment like RMC or an entirely civilian environment at Civ U), get some (maybe all, if their lucky) of their phase training done, and then get commissioned as an officer and outrank that corporal. They have 4 years in.
Hopefully, by comparing the scenarios I provided, you can see the difference between quantity and quality of experience.
Before people jump down my throat about hating on ROTP, I'm not saying anything negative about the program (hell, I'm in it), nor am I insinuating that all ROTP grads are bad. I'm just saying that they're not as qualified or experienced as people who enrolled on the same day but went the NCM/DEO route.