Oh, I’m not disagreeing with you. Let’s say the same 2 people are applying to med school. The one with the best qualifications and highest scores should be chosen, correct? Let’s relate that to business since you brought it up. The best qualified should always be treated better, correct?
No, not correct at all.
I'll give you both an athletic analogy. If you Venmo me, I can give you a business analogy to help your career:
Baseball prospect #1: 6'4, 240 lbs. of muscle; he was 18 years old his entire senior year of high school; played high-level travel baseball every summer as well as his high school ball; has had private, high-level personal baseball training since he was eight years old.
As a senior in high school, he hit .480 with eight HRs, throws 92 mph off of the mound, and runs a 4.0 from home to first.
Baseball prospect #2: 6'3, 180 lbs.; he was 16 years old the first two months of his senior year; played high school ball each year but had to work in the summers to help his single-parent mother raise his three younger siblings, so he never could play (nor afford) travel ball; has never had private training let alone go to a baseball camp.
As a senior in high school, he hit .430 with five HRs, throws 89 mph off the mound, and runs a 4.0 from home to first.
Even though prospect #2 is smaller, has less production, lower measurables, and has lower "qualifications/scores," I am drafting him over prospect #1. Why would I do that since his qualifications and scores are all lower? Many reasons:
1) He is 1.5 years less physically matured due to age, so he has significant growth potential.
2) He hasn't had much coaching/time playing. Prospect #1 has been working at this his entire life and is already close to his ceiling. On the other hand, prospect #2 is very raw with a much bigger ceiling.
3) #2 already is pretty close to #1's production even though #2 has had far less resources. Imagine if they were both given the same resources/opportunities.