evaluate please: (Ryan please are you the author of the book " How to write at band 9"?

[shabi1]

Many businesses choose to recruit from within their own company rather than sourcing staff from overseas. Do the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages?

The mode of engaging new employees varies between companies. Some absorb existing manpower while others prefer to bring in staff that resides outside their geographical location. I however believe that the disadvantages outnumber the advantages. Moreover, both will be analyzed.

The main advantage of sourcing for staff abroad, rather than native ones, is the broader perspective these new recruits bring to the table. When people are brought in from a different place to a workplace, it can foster innovation due to the external set of eyes which can go a long way to boost company growth. For example, Microsoft, a foremost technology company, cites their biggest strength as its diverse team members. Furthermore, the possession of unique skillsets is another reason for choosing external persons for a job position. Certain talents such as programming, web development require people of specialized knowledge, and sometimes the availability of these people around the immediate environment is sparse. Hence, increasing the need to consider such specialists for recruitment.

The disadvantages of this trend are multifarious. Firstly, it is very expensive to engage the services of one that is far away. Logistics, salaries can be a burden to start-up companies.

Secondly, the quality of foreign employees sometimes is not top-notch. Furthermore, with proper training, in-house employees will perform better specifically because of the experience they already possess due to many years working for the company. Finally, the experience that in-house staff has due to working for their employers makes them unique assets for more advanced positions such as managers or administrators.

To conclude, when new eyes are brought on board from foreign lands, they offer a unique experience and sometimes rare talents. However, I believe that the resources used for the recruitment of these expatriates can otherwise be invested in training the existing human capital that will input more insights into the organization.

[goldcoastielts]

Visit ThisCourse for IELTS and PTE!!

Homepage: https://www.this-course.com

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbVrKy ... LmQirBfSTw

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thiscoursesocial/


Thanks for your submission shabi1!! Please see my rewrite below ...

INTRO:
THESE DAYS, the mode of engaging new employees varies between companies. Some absorb PRE-existing manpower FROM INSIDE THE COMPANY, while others prefer to bring in staff that RESIDE (change 'outside their') IN OTHER geographical locationS. I, however, (add commas) believe that the disadvantages outnumber the advantages. Moreover, both will be analyzed BELOW.

B1:
The main advantage of sourcing (delete 'for') staff FROM abroad, rather than EMPLOYING native PEOPLE, is the broader perspective these new recruits bring to the table ( ). When people are brought in from a different place to WORK, it can foster innovation due to the external set of eyes which can go a long way toWARDS boostING company growth. For example, Microsoft, ONE OF THE foremost technology COMPANIES, cites their biggest strength as BEING THEIR diverse team members. Furthermore, the possession of unique skillsets is another reason for choosing external persons for a job position. Certain talents such as programming AND web development require people WITH specialized knowledge, and sometimes theRE IS NO availability of these people IN the immediate environment (delete 'is sparse'). Hence, (move 'increasing') the need to consider such specialists for recruitment INCREASES.

B2:
ON THE OTHER HAND, the disadvantages of this trend are multifarious. Firstly, it is very expensive to engage the services of one that is far away. Logistics AND salaries can be a burden to start-up companies. Secondly, the quality of foreign employees sometimes is OFTEN not top-notch. Furthermore, with proper training, in-house employees will perform better specifically because of the experience they already possess due to many years working for the company. Finally, the experience that in-house staff has due to working for their employers makes them unique assets for more advanced positions such as managers or administrators.

CONC:
To conclude, when new eyes are brought on board from foreign lands, they offer a unique experience and sometimes rare talents. However, I believe that the resources used for the recruitment of these expatriates COULD otherwise be BETTER invested in training the existing human capital that WOULDBE ABLE TO ADD more insight (delete 's') TO the organization.



Good essay, but a little clunky especially the second body.

Advice:
1. Start the introduction with a simple linking phrase to engage the reader.
2. A couple of times you made list-like constructions with only two elements ("...logicstics, salaries..." / "such as programming, web development ..."). Make sure you have three elements in a list, or connect two elements with 'and'.
3. The second body felt a lot more rushed than the first body. The first body had good evidence-example pairings, while the second body felt like a list of examples one after the other. See the YouTube video on
4. "could/would" is better than "can/will" for hypotheticals as in your conclusion.

Band-score:
TA: 7.0
G: 7.0
V: 7.5
CC: 6.5

[shabi1]

Thank you so much sir! my exams are in a few weeks time wish me luck!

[goldcoastielts]

Good luck shabi1, and please let me know how you do in the exam (especially the writing part!)

[shabi1]

i will, thank you very much!