Today, many employers are looking for various sources of information to understand job applicants better. Which is the best way for the employers to better know the situation of a job applicant? Contacting previous employers; checking the job applicant's profile on the social platform; one month's probation.
Whether an applicant is compotent for a job position or not? Answring this question, while some of employers think to recruit applicants for a trial period, others prefer to look at the online profiles of the applicants. I, on the other hand, believe it is better to contact their former employers.
First, by asking infirmation about applicants we could get access to main information about their hard-wired personality traits without wasting time. To clarify, from a psychological point of view, people keep their manner during life span changeless and sturdy. For instance, if a person is lazy or she or he is a go-getter individual, it is of high probability to maintain that behaviour in other situations, too. Speaking to previous cheifs provides a lot of information that otherwise goes unnoticed or waste a lot of time ti understand by trying a period of experimental work. Thus, the best way to get maximum data in a short time is to talk with someone who worked with the applicant.
Second, employers look at this situation--recruiting employees to a given job position-- from a same perspective; they can understand each other empatheticly and they are aware about the difficulties of recruiting an incompotent person, so they will be consult to their counterparts honestly and wisely as well as sharing feelings of deep compassion. On the other hand, although talking to another person could be biased to some extent, this has a solution: talking to couple of people, rather than relying on just one employer. By doing so, we gain plenty of information and took their most similar parts as most reliable facts. This is neither the case with checking a persons' online profiles on social media as they try to show their best on all the platforms, nor in working with them for just a short time-- due to the fact that people will show their best at a short-lived period to get the position.
In conclusion, I defenitely believe that former empliyers are a better source of information about an applicants because it is more time efficient, and more reliable as the employers could umderstand each other better. Last but not least this way is less biased than other ways suggested at the question, as individuals could propose their best for a month, or on their profiles, but they are not able to decieve eveyone they worked with before.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-11-28 | zahrash75588 | 85 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement People today spend too much time on personal enjoyment doing things they like to do rather than doing things they should do Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 73
- People today spend too much time on personal enjoyment doing things they like to do rather than doing things they should do 76
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Life today is easier and more comfortable than it was when your grandparents were children Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 76
- For the successful development of a country it is more important for a government to spend money on the education of very young children five to ten years old than to spend money on universities Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 85
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Because people are busy doing many different things they do very few things well 90
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 92, Rule ID: MOST_SOME_OF_NNS[1]
Message: After 'some of', you should use 'the' ('some of the employers') or simply say ''some employers''.
Suggestion: some of the employers; some employers
...n or not? Answring this question, while some of employers think to recruit applicants for a tria...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 115, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... question, while some of employers think to recruit applicants for a trial period...
^^
Line 1, column 158, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...o recruit applicants for a trial period, others prefer to look at the online prof...
^^
Line 5, column 670, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a person' or simply 'persons'?
Suggestion: a person; persons
... This is neither the case with checking a persons online profiles on social media as they...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 867, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ct that people will show their best at a short-lived period to get the position....
^^
Line 5, column 890, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...w their best at a short-lived period to get the position. In conclusion, I de...
^^
Line 7, column 100, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'an applicant' or simply 'applicants'?
Suggestion: an applicant; applicants
...re a better source of information about an applicants because it is more time efficient, and ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, honestly, if, look, second, so, thus, well, while, for instance, in conclusion, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 61.0 30.3222958057 201% => Less preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 13.0 5.01324503311 259% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1958.0 1373.03311258 143% => OK
No of words: 398.0 270.72406181 147% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.91959798995 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46653527281 4.04702891845 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90776800482 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 145.348785872 149% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.542713567839 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 591.3 419.366225166 141% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.23620309051 12% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 21.2450331126 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 77.0003975606 49.2860985944 156% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.857142857 110.228320801 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.4285714286 21.698381199 131% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.64285714286 7.06452816374 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.230495018156 0.272083759551 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0828927166108 0.0996497079465 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0773963796425 0.0662205650399 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167848849711 0.162205337803 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0886588533986 0.0443174109184 200% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 13.3589403974 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.52 53.8541721854 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.0289183223 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.87 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 63.6247240618 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.498013245 126% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 Out of 30
---------------------
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.