Nowadays, some employers think that formal academic qualifications are more important than life experience or personal qualities when they look for new employees. Why is in this case? Is a positive or negative development.
The priority of formal academic qualifications over life experience or personal characteristics in the recruitment process has been highlighted as an emerging issue for many reasons. Although the disadvantage is pronounced, the upside can justify this.
There are many reasons behind this trend. First, Recruiters often equate academic qualifications to excellent credentials for the occupation, leading to higher efficiency and productivity at work. For example, graduates with excellent degrees are more likely to be granted high positions than those with inferior qualifications. Second, academic qualifications could enable employers have better gauge on the applicants’ potentials. It is clear that if recruiters choose people with good life experience, it will require long apprentice process to ensure their competence, costing unnecessary time, money and effort.
However, this pattern could have both positive and negative effects on companies. On the one hand, individuals with formal academic qualifications are already outfitted with knowledge and proper training for various job specifications. This will save companies from sending staffs to educational institutions for job training, which is proved to be prohibitively expensive process. On the other hand, since employees have a penchant for over-relying on their formal academic knowledge and unpracticed skills, they consequently could hardly handle real-life predicaments and crises as effectively as those with life experience.
In conclusion, the pattern could stem from the equation of academic capacities with high work productivity and the evaluation of applicants’ abilities. Additionally, this could culminate in lower disbursement on staff training in companies but simultaneously the increasing likelihood of inflexible personnel.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 477, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to people'
Suggestion: to people
.... It is clear that if recruiters choose people with good life experience, it will requ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, however, if, second, so, for example, in conclusion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 7.30460921844 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 24.0651302605 54% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 41.998997996 81% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1577.0 1615.20841683 98% => OK
No of words: 254.0 315.596192385 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.20866141732 5.12529762239 121% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99216450694 4.20363070211 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.44301861871 2.80592935109 123% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 176.041082164 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.645669291339 0.561755894193 115% => OK
syllable_count: 493.2 506.74238477 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.60771543086 118% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => 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: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.7184000082 49.4020404114 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.307692308 106.682146367 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5384615385 20.7667163134 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.38461538462 7.06120827912 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.224277504379 0.244688304435 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0769669760184 0.084324248473 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0463286225251 0.0667982634062 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134721266884 0.151304729494 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0582079921175 0.056905535591 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.6 13.0946893788 134% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 26.81 50.2224549098 53% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 18.74 12.4159519038 151% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.3 8.58950901804 120% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 78.4519038076 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
More content wanted.
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 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.