Emphasizing Intelligence Instead Of Prior Experience In The Workplace

Rationality has ramifications for every aspect of human life, even things that pale in comparison to matters of foundational truth or deep epistemology.  Reason's necessary truths cut right through the most practical issues and the most commonplace customs.  This includes customs of the workplace, an aspect of modern life teeming with practical and abstract dimensions.  One Western norm that might seem to fall mostly on the practical side of philosophy (for all things are philosophical in some way) ends up having connections to significant truths about reason and societal structuring: the push for even "entry level" jobs to require years of prior experience in that very industry or role.

This usually arises due to nothing other than the influence of the idea that some arbitrary amount of experience or lack of experience is more relevant to a person's workplace potential than their intelligence, or their rationality, and their ability to personally adapt to the necessary steps of specific jobs.  Almost anyone can perform the basic tasks of many jobs, and everyone is capable of possessing or developing rationality, but only certain people have the time and financial resources to dedicate years of their life being taught things by professors that are either unnecessary for actual jobs or that are trivial or can be easily self-taught.

The trend of employers demanding years of experience in a given field that almost no one gets into apart from already having prior experience only makes it more difficult for genuinely interested or capable employees to actually take the role they might excel in.  Apart from very specific jobs that could harm or kill people if not handled correctly, there is hardly a reason to withhold career paths from those who do not have years of experience.  Obviously, needless, self-defeating job requirements of this sort are usually seen with frustration by people who would otherwise love to have a particular job, and rightly so.

This system merely reflects the collective Western obsession with experience, social recognition, and meaningless educational accolades instead of sheer rationality, competence, and willingness to learn or develop new skills.  Only the latter three are truly needed or helpful in the vast majority of jobs that could be held in the West.  Since a large number of jobs are not necessarily harmful to consumers in any sort of direct sense on their own even when they are held by erratic or "uneducated" employees, there is not even a practical necessity for formal pre-training education beforehand (in those specific cases).

The requirement of years of industry experience serves as more of a barrier than a filter when it comes to allowing new workers into a certain type of job.  It becomes counter-productive to the goal of employing people who could grow into a position rather quickly and easily.  At worst, positions incorrectly described as requiring years of experience might be miscategorized as "entry level" and assigned pay below what the work would actually receive it categorized differently.  This only shows that a company undervalues its employees even if they meet the arbitrary, gratuitous requirements of its hiring managers.  With or without this double error, though, prioritizing experience over intelligence is never a rational way to approach employment.