LNAT model essay: mandatory retirement

It takes a firm general answer and still allows principled exceptions, which shows the reader where the line would fall. 513 words.

1. There should be no general compulsory retirement age. Whether a person can do a job depends on their ability, and ability varies far more between individuals than it does with age. A rule that ends careers on a birthday treats people as members of an age group, not as the workers they are.

   NoteA clear answer with its reason in the same paragraph. The final sentence frames the issue as one of fairness to individuals.

2. Ageing affects people in very different ways. Some workers are slowing down at sixty; others are at the height of their skill at seventy. Many also want or need to keep working, whether for income, for purpose or because their pension falls short. A fixed retirement age forces out the second group to deal with the first, when the first could be managed in the way any performance problem is managed. The United Kingdom recognised this in 2011, when the default retirement age was abolished and employers lost the right to retire staff simply for reaching 65.

   NoteThe reason is supported by an accurate legal fact, used briefly. The comparison with performance management offers a better alternative, not just a criticism.

3. A fixed age also wastes skill that is expensive to replace. An experienced nurse, engineer or teacher carries knowledge that took decades to build, much of it never written down. Forcing such people out at a set age, when many would choose to work on part-time, removes that knowledge from the workplace and from the training of younger staff. With people living longer and pension costs rising, a society that pushes able workers out early also asks fewer workers to support more retired people.

   NoteA second reason, practical rather than moral, that widens the argument from the individual to the economy.

4. The strongest objection is that older workers block the way for younger ones. If senior staff never retire, promotion slows, and young people wait longer for the posts that would let them progress. A retirement age, on this view, is a fair way to share opportunities between generations. In professions where senior posts are few, such as university chairs or partnerships, the effect can be real. A fixed date may also spare older workers the indignity of being dismissed for poor performance.

   NoteThe objection is presented as a fairness argument, which is its most persuasive form.

5. This assumes there is a fixed number of jobs, which is rarely true across an economy: experienced workers also train others, spend their earnings and sometimes create new roles. Within a single organisation, the problem is real, but it can be met by other means, such as phased retirement and open competition for promotion. Forcing out an able person to make room for another treats the first unfairly to benefit the second. The young are better served by a fair contest for each post than by a rule that removes their competitors on a fixed date. As for dignity, regular talks about plans, open to staff of every age, are kinder than a rule that treats everyone of a certain age as finished.

   NoteThe reply separates the economy-wide claim, which is weak, from the organisation-level claim, which is fairer, and answers each.

6. There may be narrow exceptions where the risk of decline is serious and hard to test, such as some roles with direct responsibility for public safety, and the law already sets an upper age for judges. These should be justified case by case. As a general rule, though, people should leave work when they can no longer do it well, or when they choose to, not on a date fixed by their birth certificate.

   NoteThe exceptions show the principle has limits and that the writer has thought about them. The final line restates the answer memorably.

What would make it stronger: Explain how an employer should judge declining ability fairly, since the essay relies on that being possible.