If two applicants for a job are otherwise equally qualified the job should go to the applicant with more experience Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the posit

The author contends that a job applicant with more experience should be chosen in a case that two applicants for a job are equally qualified. This is a contention with which I generally disagree for following reasons.

To begin with, the expression of “otherwise equally qualified’’ is so ambiguous. If every organization has a test for every applicant to pass, and the test would show same outcome for two applicants, it means that although one of the applicants has less experience, he or she has more ability in another factor which is important for employers too. Moreover, every organization has its own priorities and factors to qualify the applicants. For instance, one organization possibly puts more emphasis on curiosity rather than experience. Let’s take the example of a firm which works in the market of high technology products such as tablets or mobiles. This market inherently is so mutable; new technologies and specialties are presented every day. Therefore, the experience could lose its significance. Such a company should hire a person with curiosity and the ability to explore new fields, a person who is able to learn about new technologies and keeps the firm competitive. In a word, it is not prudent to make a general statement like this, and suppose that it is true about any situation.

Of course, some may assert that there are a lot of positions that experience is critical such as surgery or fire fighting, but as I mentioned before, every case should be considered individually. When I am saying that giving a generalized declaration is not reasonable, it also means that absolutely there are careers that experience is essential and unavoidable.

Additionally, it could be unfair towards young people who are looking for a job. No experience causes them to gain no job. No job is equal to no experience, and so on. Actually it turns into a perpetual cycle, and I would think that this cycle ought to be cut down somewhere. One solution that I can propose is that the tests which organizations choose to hire people based on outcome’s, could be extended. Employers can include more factors to differentiate among applicants more precisely. It is possible that the test has been neglected some factors which are important to the organization; also, an applicant might have some capabilities which could be attractive for employers, but the test has not covered. Indeed, when two applicants are equally qualified, the employers should consider other factors rather than simply choose an applicant regarding his experience.

However, there are some situations that a company has no choice rather than hiring based on the applicant’s experience. In particular, when a company has to find a suitable person for a position in a limited period, and there is no time to examine applicants in detail, it is a wise decision to consider the amount of experience between two applicants who equally qualified.

Ultimately, I disagree with this statement unless a company has to do so. In fact, there are other options to note such as more specific tests for qualifying the applicants.