if two applicants for a job are otherwise equally qualified, the job should go to the applicant with more experience
I agree with the above statement that if two applicants for a job are otherwise equally qualified, the job should go to the applicant with more experience. From an employer standpoint, this would eliminate trainings costs, ensure higher quality of work, and …. It is important to note that although agreeing with the above statement, there are instances where adopting this position would not be beneficial.
For starters, an applicant with experience is going to require less training, saving the employer time and money. It is easy for an applicant to have a flawless resume, but experience shows that they can do the work. For example, a PhD in Clinical Psychology does not ensure that you will be an exceptional counselor, however, a PhD in Clinical Psychology and lots of experience is more likely to result in a positive outcome. The employers knows that you have the means to apply what is on your resume, which is very important.
Another area of consideration is the quality of their work. The applicant with more experience will have references that could heighten (or lessen) the quality of their experience. If an applicant has several great references, the current employer can be confident in knowing that, if hired, this applicant will provide the company will high quality work. However, if an applicant has a flawless resume, that does not speak to their quality of work. Perhaps they were extremely book smart and got a PhD on Dean’s List, but have poor communication skills. The applicant with a PhD, mediocre grades, and good communication skills (based on references) is more likely a suitable fit.
Nevertheless, there are instances where adopting this position would be deemed not advantageous. To begin, every employee needs to start somewhere. If employers only hired applicants with previous work experience than we would soon run out of employees due to illnesses, injuries, and retirement. It is very important to ensure we will continue to have enough employees to cover essential jobs. This statement revolves around the idea of tautological reasoning. The applicant cannot get a job because they have no experience because they cannot get a job because they have no experience. The cycle needs to be broken in order for any employee to further their career and any employers to expand their business.
Another area to consider if the underlying reason why this applicant has a lot of experience. If the experience was aggregated through multiple employers where they only worked a couple months at a time, perhaps there is a reason that applicant is always let go, or perhaps they get bored easily and quit. Surely most employers prefer someone who is going to work hard and consistently then to have the best employee for two months, only to go through the hiring process all over again.
To conclude, generally it is better to choose the applicant with more experience, however there are other areas worthy of consideration. Since each situation is different, it depends a lot on what their references attest to. Looking farther into the future, it is important to ensure young workers that will eventually replace the generation with experience.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-10-04 | sunnyojh | 62 | view |
| 2023-01-28 | Pranav Pipada | 83 | view |
| 2022-10-15 | Tanub922 | 79 | view |
| 2022-07-20 | Thelmacakes | 50 | view |
| 2022-06-01 | jdkarmakar2021@gmail.com | 83 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 443, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'know'.
Suggestion: know
...lt in a positive outcome. The employers knows that you have the means to apply what i...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 478, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'booked'.
Suggestion: booked
...ty of work. Perhaps they were extremely book smart and got a PhD on Dean's List...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, look, nevertheless, so, then, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.5258426966 133% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 33.0505617978 124% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 62.0 58.6224719101 106% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 12.9106741573 194% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2676.0 2235.4752809 120% => OK
No of words: 525.0 442.535393258 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09714285714 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78673985869 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8171267587 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 215.323595506 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.468571428571 0.4932671777 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 834.3 704.065955056 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.2256210855 60.3974514979 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.923076923 118.986275619 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1923076923 23.4991977007 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.26923076923 5.21951772744 43% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.370537961736 0.243740707755 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0994492119848 0.0831039109588 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.153487510328 0.0758088955206 202% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.199930116545 0.150359130593 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.103872176786 0.0667264976115 156% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.1392134831 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.1639044944 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.97 8.38706741573 95% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 100.480337079 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 Out of 6
---------------------
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.