For many employers, formal academic qualifications are becoming more important than experience. Why is that? Is it a positive or negative trend?
Currently, many recruiters are inclined to place more emphasis on academic qualifications rather than real-life experience in terms of employing individuals. There are a host of factors attributed to be the causes of this phenomenon and from my perspective, this proclivity may be fraught with a lot of pitfalls.
On the one hand, experts have proposed some reasons contributing to the prevalence of this trend. The primary driver is that academic certificates could demonstrate the abilities and knowledge of applicants. For example, many prestigious hospitals’ employers prefer to recruit graduates having qualifications showing that they are eligible to diagnose illnesses. As a result, recruiters consider certificates to be the most fundamental criteria assessing whether individuals’ skills can meet their demands. Furthermore, academic qualifications are able to help workers to be trusted by their employers since they opine that their employees have enough knowledge to consummate arduous tasks given. Therefore, both sides could have mutual understanding and empathy, which are capable of strengthening their relationships.
On the other hand, there are some justifications prevailing me on believing that this propensity might be ominous to some extent. Firstly, numerous jobs require workers to own more hands-on experience than knowledge. This can be perfectly exemplified that those working in restaurants ought to have interpersonal skills in order to satisfy customers’ needs. Without these essential qualities, employees cannot tackle difficulties relating to their professions. Moreover, the personality of applicants plays such an important role in recruitment. To illustrate, loyalty is very crucial because employees having this quality are willing to devote all of their efforts so as to complete their duties and help corporations. Hence, but for the assistance of faithful workers, plenty organisations like Microsoft or Alibaba could not thrive and be successful.
In conclusion, apparently, it cannot be denied that basing on academic qualifications to employ can help recruiters to derive a lot of benefits. Nevertheless, I want to affirm that this tendency might have some detrimental influence on the development of companies.
- The diagram below shows how the orange juice is produced 73
- The diagram below shows the multistage production of pears as canned fruits 78
- The pictures illustrate how the layout of a school library changed over five years 67
- People are consuming more and more sugar based drinks Why What can be done to reduce sugary drink consumption 73
- The diagram below shows how the orange juice is produced 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 171, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'hosts'?
Suggestion: hosts
...s of employing individuals. There are a host of factors attributed to be the causes ...
^^^^
Line 2, column 684, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'tasks'' or 'task's'?
Suggestion: tasks'; task's
... enough knowledge to consummate arduous tasks given. Therefore, both sides could have...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 666, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
... willing to devote all of their efforts so as to complete their duties and help corporat...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, but, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, so, then, therefore, as to, for example, in conclusion, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 13.1623246493 129% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 7.85571142285 153% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 24.0651302605 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 50.0 41.998997996 119% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1942.0 1615.20841683 120% => OK
No of words: 331.0 315.596192385 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.8670694864 5.12529762239 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26537283232 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.35504168483 2.80592935109 120% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 176.041082164 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.61329305136 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 600.3 506.74238477 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 29.0595379765 49.4020404114 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 114.235294118 106.682146367 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4705882353 20.7667163134 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.1176470588 7.06120827912 143% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.01903807615 60% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.67935871743 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.170031098589 0.244688304435 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0549897442636 0.084324248473 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0753925806001 0.0667982634062 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.110370660951 0.151304729494 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.042016661457 0.056905535591 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 13.0946893788 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.27 50.2224549098 70% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.77 12.4159519038 135% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.45 8.58950901804 122% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 78.4519038076 157% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 9.78957915832 128% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.