Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
clearly the candidate with 9 year exp will have a huge advantage over the 3 years candidate. good luck to those with little years of exp, likely the 3 to 5 years chaps are made used for filling up vacancies for various stages and end up nothing in the end with so few vacancies available.
That is how many companies hiring works, calling up inferior credentials candidates but hit minimum entry criteria for various stages with no intend to hire these poor chaps, so that hirers can act act to show that they are doing their daily job & have things to do.
|
Hypothetically speaking, what makes you think that a candidate with fewer years of direct experience in banking is less favourable than another with more years of unrelated experience? If I’m looking to hire a person, would I not prefer to have someone who already knows the job scope and how to navigate in the industry? Especially if they are younger and more malleable, and not to mention the staffing cost will be lower.
Not saying that one type of candidates is necessarily better than another. The point is each candidate offers a unique package, and experience alone (without considering the relevance and quality of that experience) does not mean the candidate is stronger.