If two applicants for a job are otherwise equally qualified, the job should go to the applicant with more experience.
The real world is very different from what we encounter in our college/academic life. many education system emphasis on building your academic life rather than preparing you for the real world. in complete agreement with idea that If two applicants for a job equally qualified, the job should go to the applicant with more experience because of what a more experienced candidate brings to the table
In the fast-moving world, time and resources (capital) are everything, there is a learning curve real-life job follows-training, while many corporations will be disinclined to spend resources and time on someone when they can get someone on whom they don’t have to spend the same
As I mentioned, many education systems don't prepare you for the real world, what problems you can encounter when you are actually doing any particular job, academics knowledge neither prepare you to counter the real-life problem nor have been proven helpful in tackling them anyway, for instance, in the industry the application of any science is on large scale as a thought in school, a database engineer works on millions or billions of rows of data in working life as opposed to academic life because of resource or any reason, while school might prepare you to tackle problems with smaller data but only on hand job experience can help you in tackling the problems with data as big as much as this
Another example I would like to draw is from the investment sector, the investment domain is as unpredictable as anything can get. the fledgling securities investor will be oblivious of the nature of problems he will encounter, unlike an experienced investor. the one potentially risky investment could result in loss
Some brilliant minds like Einstein are inherently smarter than others, the justifies their selection with their IQ and employers should not miss the opportunity them just at the cost of someone who is little more experienced
The idea of giving jobs to more experienced one is financially acceptable but not at the cost of missing someone with inherent smartness
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 87, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Many
...encounter in our college/academic life. many education system emphasis on building y...
^^^^
Line 1, column 195, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: In
... than preparing you for the real world. in complete agreement with idea that If tw...
^^
Line 3, column 40, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... As I mentioned, many education systems dont prepare you for the real world, what pr...
^^^^
Line 4, column 132, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...s as unpredictable as anything can get. the fledgling securities investor will be o...
^^^
Line 4, column 146, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'securities'' or 'security's'?
Suggestion: securities'; security's
...able as anything can get. the fledgling securities investor will be oblivious of the natur...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 261, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...ounter, unlike an experienced investor. the one potentially risky investment could ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, anyway, but, if, so, while, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 11.3162921348 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 33.0505617978 64% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 58.6224719101 78% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1731.0 2235.4752809 77% => OK
No of words: 342.0 442.535393258 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.06140350877 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30037696126 4.55969084622 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86579095044 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 215.323595506 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.555555555556 0.4932671777 113% => OK
syllable_count: 544.5 704.065955056 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 6.24550561798 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 5.0 20.2370786517 25% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 68.0 23.0359550562 295% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 470.139298506 60.3974514979 778% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 346.2 118.986275619 291% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 68.4 23.4991977007 291% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 10.0 5.21951772744 192% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 10.2758426966 19% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.259581725049 0.243740707755 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0854019752231 0.0831039109588 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.106052931726 0.0758088955206 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127471855112 0.150359130593 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.128787299432 0.0667264976115 193% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 36.6 14.1392134831 259% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: 2.46 48.8420337079 5% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 14.6 7.92365168539 184% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 29.8 12.1743820225 245% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 13.25 12.1639044944 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.7 8.38706741573 128% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 100.480337079 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 11.8971910112 164% => OK
gunning_fog: 29.2 11.2143820225 260% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 30.0 11.7820224719 255% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.