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 it the case? Is it a positive or negative development?

It is that these days recruiters often believe that formal academic qualifications are more worthwhile than hand-on experiences or personal qualities when they recruit for new human resources. While there are several reasons for

this

case, I believed that the drawbacks of

this

trend are far more significant. On the one hand, I would argue that

this

trend is contributed by a number of reasons.

First

and foremost, academic qualifications are often reliable proof of one's ability.

As a result

, employers often choose a

labor

Change the spelling

labour

forcer based on their academic knowledge, which could help them save a great amount of time, while personal qualities can be only demonstrated if the candidate attends an interview or works as a trainee. Another reason is some jobs

such

as researchers and professors require a high level of academic knowledge which is reflected by qualifications.

On the other hand

, I claimed that

this

is a negative development.

Firstly

, the qualifications given by some universities are unreliable. Gia Dinh University in Viet Nam,

for instance

, always advert their qualification is quite believed by many corporations, while some researches show students of

this

colleague are underestimated most by companies. Another disadvantage is some recruiters may overlook applications of potential personnel who may not have decent certificates. If they could employ those, their companies would witness

a

Remove the article

apply

considerable growth over a period of time. In conclusion, even though there are some causes for

this

phenomenon, it seems to me that the drawbacks are more substantial.