They should be allowed computers
Paace
Posts: 14,679
Forum Member
✭✭
I can't see any reason not to allow them to use computers in this day and age. It wouldn't diminish the programme in any way but would enhance it.
It makes no sense whatsoever to have them pouring over yellow pages for hours when they could be getting on with the task. Also how ridiculous is it for them to be phoning up businesses asking what such and such a word means.
It makes no sense whatsoever to have them pouring over yellow pages for hours when they could be getting on with the task. Also how ridiculous is it for them to be phoning up businesses asking what such and such a word means.
0
Comments
Pouring over the yellow pages for hours is part of the task, not an especially intersting part, but an important part none the less.
If I told any of the bosses I worked for that I spent 6 hours trying to identify and locate a business I wouldn't last long. AS should set the tasks in the real world which includes computers and dictionaries.
In business you will need to find information that will take longer than a casual google search, but none that would make good television; on account of being too specific. The only way to have a partially-(tickbox)-research based task is to ban google and dictionaries. I also think realism is bad argument; when in the business world will they have to source their products frrom a little shop?
Because having the whole internet at their disposal adds more variables. Who knows the better website, who can put together the right search term, etc. etc. It makes the information limitless, they can veer off in all sorts of directions. If you narrow it down to a few set texts, though, you can control it, and be sure both teams are drawing from the same pool of information.
Besides which, there are quite a few dead ends on the internet. How many of the businesses they go to look like they'd have up-to-date website listings? I wonder, with a resource as big as the internet, there might be a danger it'd be information overload. The kind of businesses they'd be looking for would be like needles in haystacks. Way more red herrings, and I don't think many of the businesses that are going to be negotiable on price are likely to have particularly high PageRankings. Plus, they'd need ten computers if everyone's to research at once. I reckon there's a certain amount of merit in sticking to books. Easier, more visual, and limits the teams to equal and finite amounts of information.
It isn't very realistic, though, no.
Fair point.
The apprentice is not supposed to be realistic it's about testing skills in difficult situations.
Its also an entertainment show and what's entertaining about people sitting in a room looking at directories for most of the day . I prefer to see them out and about and dealing with people. Even with the help of computers most tasks are not going to be straight forward and easy when you're dealing with people.
Last year Zara just phones a library and asked them to look the obscure one up... don't know why no one did that this time, they surely saw it last year.
I suspect there were told they couldn't. It was innovative of Zara to do it, it would prove nothing if they copied her.
What amazes me is that not one of them knew what candelabrum was in the first place. Found that really strange to be honest.
I've never heard the word candelabrum being used, candelabra yes. I think most of the people they asked would have known what a candelabra was.
Just ridiculous really even denying them a dictionary . Instead the BBC thinks our future bright hopes should waste most of the day trying to find out what a word means .
I don't think it's fair to say it would prove nothing... if the only decent things people could ever do were things that no one had ever done before, no one would ever do anything...
If that's the way to find out what a word means, what's wrong with doing it? Who cares if someone had previously done it? It's not copying people that isn't innovative, it's knowing what to copy and what not to copy.
Candelabra is the plural of candelabrum. I loathed Latin at school but it is extraordinary how much more you know about the English language if you were taught just a modicum of Latin, even if you think you didn't retain it.
I find it hard to imagine that these young people have never come upon or seen the word "candelabra", which would lead them to "candelabrum" if they thought about it for two second. Even if they haven't seen one surely they would have heard the word used or seen it written down in literature, dramas, news stories, programmes about antiques, etc. I do worry about the very limited scope of young people and it is extraordinary that even with the internet and "spell check" they frequently make basic errors.
Not sure about that. How many Latin words with -um in the singular AND -a in the plural are in common use in English? Even 'agenda' and 'data' are technically plural but are often used to mean the singular - I've even seen 'agenda' superpluralised to 'agendae'.
I was surprised that no one knew about that, but I don't think it's fair to cast doubt on all young people (one of which I am) because of it. If the whole women's team hadn't known what it was, would you have said you worry about the limited scope of women?
Oh, the irony.
Never a waste of time looking up a word in the dictionary, as that's how I learned what words meant in English, when I was a nipper, so the youth of today have few excuses not to find out in same way.:)
You missed out the crucial part of my sentence:
I find it hard to imagine that these young people have never come upon or seen the word "candelabra", which would lead them to "candelabrum" if they thought about it for two second.
Stadium and curriculum are two words young people probably know quite well. Odd nobody mentions the Latin connection nowadays, apparently.