I expect Natasha interviews will be cringeworthy, lets face it the only eason she's still there is because LS hasn't had much of a chance to get rid of her. She's been very lucky up until now.
They aren't even employed by Sugar, and yet he still fires them....
Well, here we come to an interesting question.
If these candidates are not at the time of their "firing" employed by LAS or company, who are they employed by?.
Lets face it, you would have to have money coming in for the (2 month?) period of the shows filming wouldnt you, so are they still employed by their previous firms and are they compensated for the employees absence, or if self employed, are they getting some sort of stipend?.
I bet it has been explained a lot before, but sadly havent seen it, so if someone could elucidate I would be grateful.
Lets face it, you would have to have money coming in for the (2 month?) period of the shows filming wouldnt you, so are they still employed by their previous firms and are they compensated for the employees absence, or if self employed, are they getting some sort of stipend?.
I have seen no info here or in Google on any allowance for The Apprentice candidates, but at least they get food and lodgings free, although that is no help towards mortgage/rent or support of dependants. I believe many candidates have jobs held open for them if they return after You're fired.
No hardship for his lordship though, reputed to be paid £250K per season, and The Apprentice 2010 landlady below:
If these candidates are not at the time of their "firing" employed by LAS or company, who are they employed by?.
Lets face it, you would have to have money coming in for the (2 month?) period of the shows filming wouldnt you, so are they still employed by their previous firms and are they compensated for the employees absence, or if self employed, are they getting some sort of stipend?.
I bet it has been explained a lot before, but sadly havent seen it, so if someone could elucidate I would be grateful.
Apparently all of the candidates are paid the same fee for appearing, regardless of their firing position. The fee has been described as: "Just about enough to pay the mortgage for the time you're away - think less than £2,000 for eight or nine weeks in many cases."
I guess technically they're being employed by the BBC/Talkback Thames for the duration of the show?
I suppose the interviews were done many months ago. How does it work. At the end of the interviews LS decides then and there who wins. Or at least do they make 4 different endings like they do with two candidates. Most likely he doesnt know yet about Tom's business problems so if the interview is done so long ago it wont come up. It would be better if the interviews after all the tasks would be done now just before the showing and real decision. Their history knowledge leaves much to be desired. I always wonder why we really have to know it. It seems these high flying candidates think the same and never bothered with it.
Maybe Helen qualified but the firm didn't keep her on? That happens a lot...
This is quite possible. When the recesion hit there was a glut of very capable and qualified lawyers thrown on to the job market as soon as they qualified. Even if this was what happened to Helen I'm sure you would want to dress it up as something else on your CV. People have very short memories and forget that times have been hard. Trainees are cheap to keep but qualified lawyers want much higher salaries.
I would also add that young, newly qualified lawyers have to put in plenty of extra hours and be seen to be making max effort as it is highly competitive. I think that there are plenty who don't want this even when offered the high salaries. This is not for those that want a life, that comes later but at a cost.
It tends to be those who rely on blagging to get by in life (Past examples include Tre and Stubags) who get really shown up at the interviews. Which means that Jim and Natasha are the most likely to get really caught out. While Tom , Susan and Helen seem more straight talking.
Helen seems like she'd be the strongest in an interview situation.
Tom I expect will do ok - but we might see some of his rabbit in the headlight expressions at some of the more vicious lines of questioning.
Susan seems the hardest to tell how it'll go, Will she keep who cool, will she say something daft, will she descend into whiny tones when she feels attacked.
Mind you it's not normally based that much on interview ability. Lee McQueen somehow managed a win despite what seemed like a horrific interview experience.
I think Natasha would be the only shock win at this stage.
Correct! Based on his interview (and lying about going to uni) why on earth did Lee win!
He could not have survived a real interview based on his performance let alone get offered the job
I believe she didn't give up anything. She was qualified as a (trainee) solicitor but decided not to work as one.
I thought her decision (didn't want to defend the guilty) was odd, but I like to believe she was joking. I'm inclined to believe she wasn't interested in it as she thought she was. It's quite common. 40% of law graduates didn't work in legal fields after all.
I don't think it's that strange. I've heard law students say the same thing about defending the guilty. Also, it's expensive to do the further studies necessary to become a solicitor. Not worth taking the loan if your heart isn't in it. Another possibility is that because law is so competitive she didn't feel her degree was good enough to compete at the top. (Just a wild guess, I've no idea where she studied law and what grade she got).
Anyway surely her answer has to be that the move into waitressing eventually got her to the top at Gregg's. I can't see Helen being thrown by an interviewer telling her she made the wrong choice when she's clearly been successful in the food business.
Haven't seen another thread analysing the trailer at the end of last nights show... looks like Helen bombed- When she was saying "if you dont know your business plan then you have no chance" (or similar) her voice was cracking like she was upset ... so she was referring to herself.
Also Margaret saying "does that make you an ass then?" must surely be Jim who has been trotting out (pardon the pun ) this "thoroughbred" analogy all the way through :sleep:
I'm looking forward the ep massivey but have to say I think this series would have been better finshed-off with a proper task-style pitch from each of them to the Lord and his allies
I'm not even going to try and predict how things are gona go the interviews (esp with the preview editing making it seem like it goes one way but doesn't turn out to be like that when it comes to the show).
All I can say is I'm looking forward to it! And Margaret returns!
Jim - whole lotta bullcrap and jedi stuff only works on the weak minded. I'm sorry Jim, these are the droids we're looking for!!
Helen - calm and collected, but will struggle with the inevitable 'you're just a glorified secretary' stuff she'll get from the usual suspects.
Susan - she'll talk quickly, frown, look bemused and somehow manage to pluck the right answer out of thin air but not know quite how she's done it.
Tom - he'll stutter his way through it and will have holes picked in his current business and Margaret will probably take a fancy to him and offer him a special hand shake under the table.
I don't think it's that strange. I've heard law students say the same thing about defending the guilty. Also, it's expensive to do the further studies necessary to become a solicitor. Not worth taking the loan if your heart isn't in it. Another possibility is that because law is so competitive she didn't feel her degree was good enough to compete at the top. (Just a wild guess, I've no idea where she studied law and what grade she got).
In the Final 5 she claimed to have got a 2:1 law degree so would certainly have qualified her to compete, if not at the top of corporate law, at least in the general profession. Given the vast majority of lawyers have nothing to do with criminal law, not wanting to 'defend the guilty' seemed to me to be, at best, a very disingenuous explanation for becoming a waitress after getting a good degree. There are many uses a good law degree can be put to, so I have to say I thought that was a very odd explanation for that period in her life - the fact it was included in the edit leads me to believe we may hear more!
In the Final 5 she claimed to have got a 2:1 law degree so would certainly have qualified her to compete, if not at the top of corporate law, at least in the general profession. Given the vast majority of lawyers have nothing to do with criminal law, not wanting to 'defend the guilty' seemed to me to be, at best, a very disingenuous explanation for becoming a waitress after getting a good degree. There are many uses a good law degree can be put to, so I have to say I thought that was a very odd explanation for that period in her life - the fact it was included in the edit leads me to believe we may hear more!
She got a 2.1, yes, but it was from De Montfort. A lot of success in law depends on your alma mater, and DM is not perceived as being an especially good university (I'm not making any claims as to whether it actually is or not).
She got a 2.1, yes, but it was from De Montfort. A lot of success in law depends on your alma mater, and DM is not perceived as being an especially good university (I'm not making any claims as to whether it actually is or not).
True, it is not a Russell Group Uni so her chances of getting a training contract will have been slim. Not easy to compete for a Training Contract even with a 2:1 when the top firms only want Oxbridge grads.
I think she has put her degree to good use in her current role. Clearly she is highly respected by the company and has a great deal of responsibility so you can hardly say she is a failure.
True, it is not a Russell Group Uni so her chances of getting a training contract will have been slim. Not easy to compete for a Training Contract even with a 2:1 when the top firms only want Oxbridge grads.
I think she has put her degree to good use in her current role. Clearly she is highly respected by the company and has a great deal of responsibility so you can hardly say she is a failure.
Out of curiosity, how do people who do the postgrad conversion courses fare, in general obv.?
Out of curiosity, how do people who do the postgrad conversion courses fare, in general obv.?
Approximately 50% of layers are from other degree subjects, some law companies prefer them to not have a law degree (I know that sounds bonkers but the degree is academic, only the 2 years training and the LPC are the vocational bits)
Indeed if they are in International Law they may prefer them to have a good language or possibly two. Lots of history graduates go into law (see the great Margaret Mountford)
Approximately 50% of lawyers are from other degree subjects, some law companies prefer them to not have a law degree (I know that sounds bonkers but the degree is academic, only the 2 years training and the LPC are the vocational bits)
Indeed if they are in International Law they may prefer them to have a good language or possibly two. Lots of history graduates go into law (see the great Margaret Mountford)
Sorry, amended the above to Lawyers, although layers might work? Then again...
Having just watched the You're Hired show with Dara and being reminded of the candidates, I think Susan may struggle abit with interviews, mainly because she can't always find words on the spot to explain herself clearly and concisely.
Certainly she held her own in the boardroom with Sugar but these other interviewrs won't allow her too much time to respond to questions like Lord Sug sometimes gives the candidates.
Comments
They aren't even employed by Sugar, and yet he still fires them....
Well, here we come to an interesting question.
If these candidates are not at the time of their "firing" employed by LAS or company, who are they employed by?.
Lets face it, you would have to have money coming in for the (2 month?) period of the shows filming wouldnt you, so are they still employed by their previous firms and are they compensated for the employees absence, or if self employed, are they getting some sort of stipend?.
I bet it has been explained a lot before, but sadly havent seen it, so if someone could elucidate I would be grateful.
No hardship for his lordship though, reputed to be paid £250K per season, and The Apprentice 2010 landlady below:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1323224/Katherine-Jenkins-Star-paid-50k-house-candidates-new-4-7m-home.html
Apparently all of the candidates are paid the same fee for appearing, regardless of their firing position. The fee has been described as: "Just about enough to pay the mortgage for the time you're away - think less than £2,000 for eight or nine weeks in many cases."
I guess technically they're being employed by the BBC/Talkback Thames for the duration of the show?
This is quite possible. When the recesion hit there was a glut of very capable and qualified lawyers thrown on to the job market as soon as they qualified. Even if this was what happened to Helen I'm sure you would want to dress it up as something else on your CV. People have very short memories and forget that times have been hard. Trainees are cheap to keep but qualified lawyers want much higher salaries.
I would also add that young, newly qualified lawyers have to put in plenty of extra hours and be seen to be making max effort as it is highly competitive. I think that there are plenty who don't want this even when offered the high salaries. This is not for those that want a life, that comes later but at a cost.
Helen seems like she'd be the strongest in an interview situation.
Tom I expect will do ok - but we might see some of his rabbit in the headlight expressions at some of the more vicious lines of questioning.
Susan seems the hardest to tell how it'll go, Will she keep who cool, will she say something daft, will she descend into whiny tones when she feels attacked.
Mind you it's not normally based that much on interview ability. Lee McQueen somehow managed a win despite what seemed like a horrific interview experience.
I think Natasha would be the only shock win at this stage.
He could not have survived a real interview based on his performance let alone get offered the job
Anyway surely her answer has to be that the move into waitressing eventually got her to the top at Gregg's. I can't see Helen being thrown by an interviewer telling her she made the wrong choice when she's clearly been successful in the food business.
Sunday 17th. 21:00
Cheers
Also Margaret saying "does that make you an ass then?" must surely be Jim who has been trotting out (pardon the pun
I'm looking forward the ep massivey but have to say I think this series would have been better finshed-off with a proper task-style pitch from each of them to the Lord and his allies
All I can say is I'm looking forward to it! And Margaret returns!
Helen - calm and collected, but will struggle with the inevitable 'you're just a glorified secretary' stuff she'll get from the usual suspects.
Susan - she'll talk quickly, frown, look bemused and somehow manage to pluck the right answer out of thin air but not know quite how she's done it.
Tom - he'll stutter his way through it and will have holes picked in his current business and Margaret will probably take a fancy to him and offer him a special hand shake under the table.
In the Final 5 she claimed to have got a 2:1 law degree so would certainly have qualified her to compete, if not at the top of corporate law, at least in the general profession. Given the vast majority of lawyers have nothing to do with criminal law, not wanting to 'defend the guilty' seemed to me to be, at best, a very disingenuous explanation for becoming a waitress after getting a good degree. There are many uses a good law degree can be put to, so I have to say I thought that was a very odd explanation for that period in her life - the fact it was included in the edit leads me to believe we may hear more!
She got a 2.1, yes, but it was from De Montfort. A lot of success in law depends on your alma mater, and DM is not perceived as being an especially good university (I'm not making any claims as to whether it actually is or not).
True, it is not a Russell Group Uni so her chances of getting a training contract will have been slim. Not easy to compete for a Training Contract even with a 2:1 when the top firms only want Oxbridge grads.
I think she has put her degree to good use in her current role. Clearly she is highly respected by the company and has a great deal of responsibility so you can hardly say she is a failure.
Out of curiosity, how do people who do the postgrad conversion courses fare, in general obv.?
Approximately 50% of layers are from other degree subjects, some law companies prefer them to not have a law degree (I know that sounds bonkers but the degree is academic, only the 2 years training and the LPC are the vocational bits)
Indeed if they are in International Law they may prefer them to have a good language or possibly two. Lots of history graduates go into law (see the great Margaret Mountford)
Sorry, amended the above to Lawyers, although layers might work? Then again...
Certainly she held her own in the boardroom with Sugar but these other interviewrs won't allow her too much time to respond to questions like Lord Sug sometimes gives the candidates.