What arguments could you offer for or against...?

Question

What arguments could you offer for or against appointing people to jobs solely on the basis of the results of a competitive examination?

Answer 1

For:

It puts the best suited in a position to do the best job.

Against:

Some people just can't do well on a test no matter how well they may know the material.

Answer 2

For: if it is a good exam and is anonymous as graded, it can reward people based on merit-- their ability to do a job, and can remove the possibility of discrimination based on race, appearance, etc.

Against: A competitive exam can't accurately test other important job characteristics like leadership skills, inter-personal/social skills or work ethic. ALso, as someone already mentioned, such tests will weed out poor test-takers who might otherwise be the best qualified for a give position. A standardized test might be a useful guide, and could even be given a lot of weight in a hiring decision, but it would be inadequate to really find the best person for most positions.

Answer 3

For - it shows that they are competent and will be able to hit the ground running because they are intelligent and know their stuff.

Against - People skills are part of any job and the exam does not measure that.