Interviews form the basic selecting criteria for most large companies. However, some people think that the interview is not a reliable method of choosing whom to employ and that there are other better methods. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
There is no denying that selecting candidates for the company is one of the most crucial processes of all organizations since it directly influences their futures and growth. In light of this, whether an interview is a trustable way to choose whom to employ has become a topic of general interest among citizens. Although some people believe this is a reliable method, I would argue that doing the interview is unsuitable, and there is another better way to replace this form.
Some people give a reason why doing an interview is a reliable method. An advocate for this opinion might argue that interviewing facilitates recruiters to see how agile and flexible the candidates are. Most occupations of most fields require fast reaction towards situations as one of the key elements. Therefore, if the interviewees can cope with the list of questionnaires that the interviewers ask persuasively and appropriately, possibly they are excellent individuals. However, candidates can partly predict the questions they will be asked to learn by heart. The interview's quality will be downgraded, and the company cannot judge their aptitudes correctly.
In my opinion, interviewing is an untrustable way that companies should not base on this to select candidates. This is because there are elements that can occur on the interview day. Being too nervous, for example, can cause interviewees not to express all of their abilities and values. In addition, interviewing cannot judge the candidates' aptitude accurately. Besides learning by heart the predicted questions, interviewees tend to flatter themselves to make them outstanding figures in front of recruiters to increase their chances of being accepted, but once they officially work for the company, they cannot do the things they have said before. Another better way to this dilemma is to base on resumes and along with organizing internships. The resumes will help recruiters to have a more overall look and assessment of the candidates, and internships will reflect their pure aptitudes and whether they are suitable for the environment. Therefore, the company can make wiser decisions.
In conclusion, although the interview is one of the compulsory stages in most companies to recruit employees currently, this method is unreliable because it cannot assess the candidates' true abilities and is easily affected by subjective factors. Instead, viewing resumes and holding internships together is a better choice since recruiters can have a closer look at the candidates' person.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-17 | Charles Le | 89 | view |
| 2023-06-14 | hieu13092006 | 78 | view |
| 2022-12-16 | Charles Le | 73 | view |
| 2022-11-24 | nhungnhungnhungnhung | 73 | view |
| 2022-11-17 | nhungnhungnhungnhung | 73 | view |
- The diagram shows the different stages in the production of woollen goods 61
- The diagrams give information about changes in a student accommodation 78
- The diagram details the process of producing olive oil 61
- Many people try to balance work and other parts of their life However this is very difficult to do What are the problems associated with this What is the best way to achieve a better balance 84
- Interviews form the basic selecting criteria for most large companies However some people think that the interview is not a reliable method of choosing whom to employ and that there are other better methods To what extent do you agree or disagree 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 332, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'candidates'' or 'candidate's'?
Suggestion: candidates'; candidate's
...addition, interviewing cannot judge the candidates aptitude accurately. Besides learning b...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 372, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'candidates'' or 'candidate's'?
Suggestion: candidates'; candidate's
...ecruiters can have a closer look at the candidates person.
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, however, if, look, so, therefore, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 13.1623246493 167% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 7.85571142285 216% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 13.0 10.4138276553 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 24.0651302605 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 46.0 41.998997996 110% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 8.3376753507 48% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2139.0 1615.20841683 132% => OK
No of words: 397.0 315.596192385 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.3879093199 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46372701284 4.20363070211 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01933695326 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 176.041082164 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.531486146096 0.561755894193 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 675.0 506.74238477 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 0.809619238477 494% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 16.0721442886 118% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.6328581736 49.4020404114 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.578947368 106.682146367 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8947368421 20.7667163134 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.36842105263 7.06120827912 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 3.4128256513 205% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.244846007503 0.244688304435 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0830691865994 0.084324248473 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0755737488604 0.0667982634062 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.171687740002 0.151304729494 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0740121407288 0.056905535591 130% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.0946893788 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 50.2224549098 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.98 12.4159519038 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.12 8.58950901804 106% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 78.4519038076 144% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.