They should be allowed computers

PaacePaace 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.
«1

Comments

  • Slow_LorisSlow_Loris Posts: 24,850
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't think it really matters. Both teams have the same resources and that is the point.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 83
    Forum Member
    Paace wrote: »
    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.

    Pouring over the yellow pages for hours is part of the task, not an especially intersting part, but an important part none the less.
  • PaacePaace Posts: 14,679
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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.
  • george.millmangeorge.millman Posts: 8,628
    Forum Member
    I agree with Paace, being able to use computers would make the tasks more believable and realistic. I don't watch the show for the entertainment of watching people screw up, I watch it because I like seeing the people who do well, and working out who's going to win.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,606
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    When in the business world would they not have access to the internet when they needed to source products? It makes no sense at all forcing them to use the Yellow Pages.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 83
    Forum Member
    When in the business world would they not have access to the internet when they needed to source products? It makes no sense at all forcing them to use the Yellow Pages.


    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?
  • cookie_365cookie_365 Posts: 710
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    What were they pouring over the yellow pages? And did they clean it up afterwards?

    ;)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,244
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I get what you're saying, but I think it's done like this to control the amount of information they've got available and make sure it's fair, rather than to make sure it's hard.

    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. :p
  • george.millmangeorge.millman Posts: 8,628
    Forum Member
    rwebster wrote: »
    I get what you're saying, but I think it's done like this to control the amount of information they've got available and make sure it's fair, rather than to make sure it's hard.

    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. :p

    Fair point.
  • TakaeTakae Posts: 13,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Who cares about realism? It's more fun to see them struggle without computers. :D
  • seelleeseellee Posts: 10,658
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    This task has never been about realism. It's about seeing how well they can apply their knowledge and negotiate. If you gave them google it would be far too easy in my opinion.

    The apprentice is not supposed to be realistic it's about testing skills in difficult situations.
  • PaacePaace Posts: 14,679
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    seellee wrote: »
    This task has never been about realism. It's about seeing how well they can apply their knowledge and negotiate. If you gave them google it would be far too easy in my opinion.

    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.
  • MuSiKeMuSiKe Posts: 4,300
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They all had smartphones, why didn't they just Google what a candelabrum was? That's what I wan't to know! :D
  • george.millmangeorge.millman Posts: 8,628
    Forum Member
    MuSiKe wrote: »
    They all had smartphones, why didn't they just Google what a candelabrum was? That's what I wan't to know! :D

    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.
  • plateletplatelet Posts: 26,363
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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.
  • cbe21okcbe21ok Posts: 3,047
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MuSiKe wrote: »
    They all had smartphones, why didn't they just Google what a candelabrum was? That's what I wan't to know! :D

    What amazes me is that not one of them knew what candelabrum was in the first place. Found that really strange to be honest.
  • PaacePaace Posts: 14,679
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    cbe21ok wrote: »
    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 .
  • george.millmangeorge.millman Posts: 8,628
    Forum Member
    platelet wrote: »
    I suspect there were told they couldn't. It was innovative of Zara to do it, it would prove nothing if they copied her.
    Paace wrote: »
    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.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 79
    Forum Member
    The task is about face-to-face negotiation, not to see who can use Kelkoo or Google.
  • theidtheid Posts: 6,045
    Forum Member
    Paace wrote: »
    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 .

    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.
  • DogmatixDogmatix Posts: 2,286
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    theid wrote: »
    ... the word "candelabra", which would lead them to "candelabrum" if they thought about it for two second.

    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'.
  • george.millmangeorge.millman Posts: 8,628
    Forum Member
    theid wrote: »
    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.

    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?
  • TakaeTakae Posts: 13,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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. :D
  • DixDix Posts: 79,018
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Paace wrote: »
    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 .

    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.:)
  • theidtheid Posts: 6,045
    Forum Member
    Dogmatix wrote: »
    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'.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.