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 position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the specific circumstances in which adopting the position would or would notbe advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
In the majority of cases, it makes perfect sense to hire the more experienced candidate among two with equal qualifications. For sake of clarity, let us assume that qualifications are defined as items that are listed on someones resume. Item’s that are difficult to convey in this format, such as energy, drive, willingness to take a lower salary, and to work longer hours, serve to differentiate the candidate with less experience. The qualities, if identified, would play into a cogent argument for hiring the candidate with less experience.
Experience is a key, and therefore valuable, asset in the workplace and government alike. In product development within the medical device industry, a project manager with experience knows the ramifications of applying to the FDA for a 510k premarket approval, and can henceforth factor that into their schedule. Furthermore, the experienced project manager knows that the FDA will likely return the submission right at the 90-day limit, with out fail. And often times their decision will be a request for clarification on a certain aspect of the submission. Granted a novice project manager might learn this from others, but it is the experienced project manager that knows to have a list of suspected questions from the FDA and canned responses, so an amended submission can be submitted immediately. The key here is that experience in a particular field, in a particular industry, with a particular task affords mastery and pattern recognition. These two assets allow the more experienced of the two candidates to truly excel, whereas the less experienced candidate might flounder.
The virtues of exposure through time on the job also pays dividends in public office. Consider, the two candidate running for President: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. One has deep experience with foreign policy, as she was Secretary of State. Furthermore, Hillary was first lady to Bill Clinton. There has probably been no other person running for President in the History of the United States that has had more exposure and first hand experience to what it means to be President than Mrs. Clinton. On the other hand, Donald Trump’s experience is in the arena of Real Estate Development. Despite Donald’s supreme confidence, he has no formal experience with the reins of governance. The utter disparity between the governmental acumen, knowledge, and wisdom of Hillary and Donald is so readily apparent that any reasonable, well informed citizen of the United States can tell. This factor will no doubt play a large part in Hilary winning the election, despite her strong disapproval ratings.
In some cases, it perhaps makes sense to hire the less experienced person. The less experienced person, knowing they are such, may be inclined to prove their worth — putting in the extra hours, taking on additional tasks. Consider a recent college graduate, that is applying for a software sales job. If said applicant knows that he is competing against another applicant with an identical education background but 2 years of work experience, he might be willing to take a pay cut. For small business, hiring the less experienced person, and thereby trading off efficiency and effectiveness for affordability, may make financial sense. After all, the less experienced person will eventually become an experienced person.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 439, Rule ID: WITH_OUT[1]
Message: This word is usually written together. Did you mean 'without'?
Suggestion: without
...e submission right at the 90-day limit, with out fail. And often times their decision wi...
^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'furthermore', 'hence', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'therefore', 'well', 'whereas', 'after all', 'no doubt', 'such as', 'in some cases', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.274796747967 0.240241500013 114% => OK
Verbs: 0.128455284553 0.157235817809 82% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0926829268293 0.0880659088768 105% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0341463414634 0.0497285424764 69% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0227642276423 0.0444667217837 51% => OK
Prepositions: 0.120325203252 0.12292977631 98% => OK
Participles: 0.0341463414634 0.0406280797675 84% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.94785553207 2.79330140395 106% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0227642276423 0.030933414821 74% => OK
Particles: 0.00325203252033 0.0016655270985 195% => OK
Determiners: 0.112195121951 0.0997080785238 113% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0211382113821 0.0249443105267 85% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00975609756098 0.0148568991511 66% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3377.0 2732.02544248 124% => OK
No of words: 537.0 452.878318584 119% => OK
Chars per words: 6.2886405959 6.0361032391 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81386128306 4.58838876751 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.405959031657 0.366273622748 111% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.314711359404 0.280924506359 112% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.206703910615 0.200843997647 103% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.173184357542 0.132149295362 131% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94785553207 2.79330140395 106% => OK
Unique words: 287.0 219.290929204 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.534450651769 0.48968727796 109% => OK
Word variations: 66.1623049732 55.4138127331 119% => OK
How many sentences: 26.0 20.6194690265 126% => OK
Sentence length: 20.6538461538 23.380412469 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.18829928 59.4972553346 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.884615385 141.124799967 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6538461538 23.380412469 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.615384615385 0.674092028746 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.94800884956 81% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.21349557522 19% => OK
Readability: 52.1249820943 51.4728631049 101% => OK
Elegance: 2.31578947368 1.64882698954 140% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.447541322308 0.391690518653 114% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0901119319143 0.123202303941 73% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0669350454129 0.077325440228 87% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.467339297607 0.547984918172 85% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.127212109525 0.149214159877 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.167713327072 0.161403998019 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0754802414421 0.0892212321368 85% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.380696030537 0.385218514788 99% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0768818297105 0.0692045440612 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.329083215349 0.275328986314 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0427001280839 0.0653680567796 65% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.4325221239 125% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.30420353982 113% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.88274336283 143% => OK
Positive topic words: 8.0 7.22455752212 111% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 3.66592920354 136% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.70907079646 74% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 13.5995575221 110% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.