Would you rather hire someone with no experience but great university results, or have works experience and average results, or someone who did badly in school but is very willing to learn?

Second choice

If I'm the hirer I'll give everyone a chance. But impose a 1month probation with intern pay and compare their performance. Get the best performance one. But sad I'm not a hirer:((

I agree with HC, to me, the most important factor is good attitude.

​

1. Without good attitude, even with great uni results, the staff may not bother to learn and put in effort to make things work.

2. With some work experience and proven track records, it certainly helps even though the result is average.

3. Bad result may be due to earlier years not keen in studies, etc but that doesn't mean one can't achieve results. As long as one is willing to learn and put in the effort, he/she will still stand a chance, just that it may seem tougher when competiting with the former 2. However, now many companies tends to give the interviewees to do personality test to find the suitable candidate, so with the correct attitude, one may stands out!

​

But then, for statutory boards, it may be a different set of benchmark as it is undeniable that they are look into more academic wise.

I would hire 1 and 2.

​

1. No exp but great results, this shows he can really study and learn. Have the grit and determination to achieve great results.

​

2. Work exp is ok

​

3. Did badly in school but willing to learn. This is hard. If he was willing to learn, why did badly in school?