Agree with Tercet above, as in any real job interview, you wouldnt bother with the silly "grilling" that the candidates recieve, as any good interviewer would just decide that the person wasnt suitable and wind the interview up.
No "real" interviewer would waste their time in trying to humiliate a candidate for a job.
Claude's job is just to be the "pantomime villain" of the interviews. In real life he isn't like that - witness the genial smile on his face when he left the boardroom and acknowledged the candidates. The Rottweiller bit is just for TV and anyone who thinks it is anything else is being naiive.
He is instructed to be 'bad cop' for the purposes of the show. In real life, you know in the first 5 or 10 mins whether the person is any good or not. You'd wrap the whole thing up as quickly as possible and move onto to the next one. My take on last night. http://j.mp/gZpyoQ
He is instructed to be 'bad cop' for the purposes of the show. In real life, you know in the first 5 or 10 mins whether the person is any good or not. You'd wrap the whole thing up as quickly as possible and move onto to the next one. My take on last night. http://j.mp/gZpyoQ
Unless it's a technical role, you need a 1 hour exam for that
RE your blog, I think Jo's problem was she felt compelled to point out (to interviewers) how shit she was :eek:
Stella breezed through no problems. I loved the reacts of teh otrhers as she sat their calmy whilst they were shitting themselves and finding it tough. I think Stella has nothing to worry about on her CV and is confident in her ability which is why it was easier for her.
I still think Chris will win as LS likes him and that he looks at things with a diiferent angle.
Secondly, the whole thing with Jamie having a blame culture is interesting. Not really with his parents and education but with the business saying he feels he does all of the work and his partner wants 50%. He did not come across well at during this part of the interview, nor in the boardroom when he had the chance to defend himself as well. The point on adapting to somwhere else when the going was good and re-investing was also a good one.
.
I do agree with Jamie that how pushy (or, put another way, just interested) your parents are makes a big difference - witness the parents that push their kids into extra tutorials for 11+ etc, and comparte with parents who don't give a ****! (Whilst my parents were never "pushy", they made it very clear the importance of a good education).
But whether to mention is interesting - he was trying to use it as a point of "look what I've done, despite..." and felt sorry for him that it backfired.
Well if he is the director/owner of the business and the turnover is 3 million then he is effectively worth that amount if the business were to be sold.
That's not true. 3m turnover means nothing. It's the profit that matters.
As far as I'm concerned the low point of the interviews was Clive ignoring Stuart's outstretched hand and ordering him to "sit down" without even looking at him. The epitome of arrogance and rudeness.
It's 'entertainment'.
Ritual humiliation has always found a ready audience so, if you don't like it, don't watch it but bear in mind that millions will.
The whole 'Apprentice-experience' is tosh. If it were an effective way of recruiting then all companies would work this way. None of them does, as we know.
It's TV!
do you not get the point of this round? It's all about penetrating the bullshit that is put forward on their CV's - it's about seeing how they can stand up to interrogation. If they can't survive Claude's interviewing techniques, how on earth are they going to survive in Sugar's cut throat corporate world? Why on earth are they going to get an easy ride when they talk the talk? Oh yes Stuart, here you go, you say you are good, the job is your's. Does that happen in the real world? No and I don't see how they are talked to like shit. Claude is the best interviewer and without him tonight, the programme would have been boring. Well done Claude, even better than last year when you rode through the 'village idiot's CV when all he stated was techno stuff in other words, geek language.
Its not THAT cut-throat mate. You dont go around belittling and insulting people in the work place! That's not how it is, despite how the BBC want to portray it. If so, Sugar would have allowed Debra Barr to disrespect Nick Hewer - no probs!
Claude sees it as a yearly chance to do his hard-man act on telly and you can't blame him.
It's 'entertainment'.
Ritual humiliation has always found a ready audience so, if you don't like it, don't watch it but bear in mind that millions will.
The whole 'Apprentice-experience' is tosh. If it were an effective way of recruiting then all companies would work this way. None of them does, as we know.
It's TV!
How about, if you dont like it, watch it and then complain about it.
I'm not switching off my fave show just cos a couple of arseholes want to make a pretty successful 21 year old look like a con-artist.
It's 'entertainment'.
Ritual humiliation has always found a ready audience so, if you don't like it, don't watch it but bear in mind that millions will.
The whole 'Apprentice-experience' is tosh. If it were an effective way of recruiting then all companies would work this way. None of them does, as we know.
It's TV!
Thanks, saved me typing the same post I've put on several threads already today!
My other point was more general - that I would like it if the 'interviews episode' took a different format - either one interviewer at a time seeing all the candidates or following one candidate a time round the 4 interviewers. It felt a bit jaunty to me I think it'd be fun to follow them one by one through the day to see in what order their interviews go well/bad/how they recover or disintegrate etc
Rhydler, I thought you said it was your fave show. Why do you like it so much if you are offended by abuse, bad language and offence being caused? Honest question.
No it isn't. This is the only firing in the series which has wound me up because it wasnt honest or right. The only time I've ever really gotten angry before this was the firing of Raef in 2008.
Its my fave show but I have a hard time handling the Interview episode as it usually results in false information being fed to Sugar who then overreacts
Comments
No "real" interviewer would waste their time in trying to humiliate a candidate for a job.
Reality TV vs reality......
Unless it's a technical role, you need a 1 hour exam for that
RE your blog, I think Jo's problem was she felt compelled to point out (to interviewers) how shit she was :eek:
Then in the boardroom it was the other way around, Claude generally had nice things to say whereas Bordan was constantly negative.
Just thought that was interesting how they both changed.
I still think Chris will win as LS likes him and that he looks at things with a diiferent angle.
I do agree with Jamie that how pushy (or, put another way, just interested) your parents are makes a big difference - witness the parents that push their kids into extra tutorials for 11+ etc, and comparte with parents who don't give a ****! (Whilst my parents were never "pushy", they made it very clear the importance of a good education).
But whether to mention is interesting - he was trying to use it as a point of "look what I've done, despite..." and felt sorry for him that it backfired.
That's not true. 3m turnover means nothing. It's the profit that matters.
Eaxctly, the company I work for turns over 15m, but profits have been just a a few 100k of late!:eek: Damnabit....
Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity.
There's nothing real world about The Apprentice, it's an entertainment show which is a vehicle for advertising Sugar's various businesses.
Ritual humiliation has always found a ready audience so, if you don't like it, don't watch it but bear in mind that millions will.
The whole 'Apprentice-experience' is tosh. If it were an effective way of recruiting then all companies would work this way. None of them does, as we know.
It's TV!
Its not THAT cut-throat mate. You dont go around belittling and insulting people in the work place! That's not how it is, despite how the BBC want to portray it. If so, Sugar would have allowed Debra Barr to disrespect Nick Hewer - no probs!
Claude sees it as a yearly chance to do his hard-man act on telly and you can't blame him.
How about, if you dont like it, watch it and then complain about it.
I'm not switching off my fave show just cos a couple of arseholes want to make a pretty successful 21 year old look like a con-artist.
The guy was a pillock.
Far too much mouth and no where near enough trouser.
He might have made a good candidate if he'd had a few years to grow up but at the moment he's just a waste of space.
You know how it works, it's the same every year. Even the contestants know exactly what to expect.
Personally I think Baggs is a con artist and a bit of an arsehole. So I'm glad he got his commupence.
A pillock yes, a prat, a buffoon - all in the name of entertainment.
But that doesn't mean he deserved to be fired in that manner. He did not.
What if you're wrong? And his comeuppance is unjustified? Will Sugar be karmically retributed?
Thanks, saved me typing the same post I've put on several threads already today!
My other point was more general - that I would like it if the 'interviews episode' took a different format - either one interviewer at a time seeing all the candidates or following one candidate a time round the 4 interviewers. It felt a bit jaunty to me I think it'd be fun to follow them one by one through the day to see in what order their interviews go well/bad/how they recover or disintegrate etc
That's what happens every week!
Its my fave show but I have a hard time handling the Interview episode as it usually results in false information being fed to Sugar who then overreacts
It's not an edifying spectacle at any time. I find it entertaining but it doesn't often show people at their best.
Agreed. But it makes great television. At that's what counts