The real jobs of this years Apprentice contestants have been revealed. TBH im suprised there CVs didnt just get thrown straight in the bin. Saying that its an entertainment show i suppose.

Anyone else think that when Alan Sugar says he is looking for a "partner" he means it in a romantic sense?

Tom Pellerau is my favourite to win though.

you can see there jobs at http://www.investoo.co.uk/revealed-t...rentice-stars/

tend to look atit the other way round. I think partner (as in business partner) is fine to descibe someone you work. I hate it when people introduce their wife or husband as their partner (which doesn't sound very personal to me).

Phrases like, "this is my business partner", "this is my partner in crime", it's always been used hasn't it to describe those that work together. Maybe Colleague is better but that won't tell you if that collegue is an equal or not, whereas partner usually implies you are of equal importance.

Tom didn't really put his inventor skills to the test in the phone App or Dog task (but maybe that was more due to not being able to be heard over the others). He needs to start showing those skills of his soon though if he wants to stand out to Lord Sug and make himself look too good to let go. I'm suprised Glen has a 1st degree!

What is it with these women getting 2:1s in law from ex-Polys? The pool must be extremely shallow.

They all have good degrees and they all have good experience in fields that are relevant. They all seem, on paper, to be credible enough from where I'm sitting.

The stats for gaining employment with that qualification are usually fairly impressive. Obviously not as good as being invited to participate in the City nose-trough by friends' fathers after Oxbridge, but for a non-nepotistic real-world qualification, fairly good.

Law is usually regarded as an appropriate qualification for aspiring managers in the same way that Classics suggests that banking would be one's forte.

The number of law degrees awarded each year greatly outnumbers available jobs in the law, but business is founded on law - contract, commerce, property, franchisng, intellectual property, etc etc

Quite agree Mr Spoon,

I really don't think that a 2;1 in Law from either of those institutions is anything to be ashamed of. Law is a very demanding degree discipline wherever it is studied.

As you say I would have thought it would make both of them very employable, though I have to say I would choose an Oxbridge graduate over them all else being equal - even if I didn't know their father!

They do all seem very suitable on paper...

Brookes is hardly the typical ex-poly.

It's interesting, though, that it doesn't mention which university Susan or Tom went to, even though their alma maters are easily the most impressive (Susan went to UCL, & Tom attended Bath).

Yes that is interesting and you are right in what you say re their alma matter.

I don't know if it has anything to do with this but Mr Sugar, to me, always seems to be somewhat reluctant to acknowledge the importance of education and in particular University studies of elite degrees at elite institutions.

He has a very valid point in that it is far from the be all and end all - to me though he just seems to overdo it somewhat.

In stark contrast in the American version Trumpy often emphasises the significance he places on good academics,

I think Lord Sugar has noticed that Tom usually gets the analysis right and spots the issues - he's said so more than
once. He's not trained to invent dog food or ideas for apps , but he is trained to think of new, physical, things that can be produced which directly fits what Lord sugar based his wealth on. The question is whether Tom has an idea that could make money - which will swing it even if he was even less visible.

Glen getting a first I think tells you something about what you need to get a degree in electronics - I don't think he would pass most other subjects. Tom on the other hand seems to have the more rounded ability that you would expect from a First Class student.

Some law students are no better than classics scholars, but if I was employing somebody, I would hire somebody who appeared self-motivated and preferably did not come from a privileged background and lived in the 'real world'. for some, that 'real world' is elite, so I would consider how the people matched the business and the customer, but much of the time, the customers are going to be Average Joes, not Rich Ruperts. It is not inverse snobbery, but certain types expect things handed to them on a plate and consider themselves too good to learn the fundamentals. Attitude is so important and I wouldn't exclude people from consideration, but somebody like last series' Jo would be higher up my short-list than a Baggs.
Once yuo pass a threshold of capability, the extra margin of intellectual ability/academic ability can be easily offset by a can-do/will-try attitude compared to an 'if I must' approach.

I know Sugar has made aware that Tom has got some things right but just saying "I'm right again" (which he said in a VT during that dog task) is not good enough. If he wants to show himself as a strong candidate he has to not just say how right he is but demonstrate that as well. I sympathise that it is hard to be heard over so many strong people but Tom will no doubt work with stronger people in his life than the candidates in the Apprentice so he needs to become stronger.


Neither are most of the other candidates trained to invent dog food, or phone apps, but they are still expected to apply their individual strengths to a task (as best they can) in which to create a succesfull outcome as possible. Tom is an Inventor, which means that he is an 'ideas man' a 'creative man' and argubly a man that (as an inventor) that has more unique ideas bouncing around his head than just the conventional idea-ed businesss man. Tom even said himself that he is a person who sees the gap in order to create what can fill it - (not exact words, but pretty much that). I'm not saying he should be coming up with contrapton ideas like that in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang but he should be at least coming up with more ideas than he is (if he is an ideas man which is what, in essence, and Inventor is). On You're Fired, didn't they show a clip on one of the tasks where his ideas were abit naff.

Tom is my FAVOURITE person in this show because he seems to truly be a nice guy unlike some of the other jerks that this show year upon year produces as its candidates. It would be nice if someone (with a slightly different job to other winner) could win this show but, his perforances need tp warrant that win as well. And has he impressed me as a business man so far, not at all! And I really wish he could because I would love for someone as nice as him to win (both on personality and because he had the spark of creativeness and business savvy to do so).

All the candidates aren't on there - that Irish guy - I can't see him down there?

Or have I missed him?

These degrees become irrelevant in the tasks.

They need to think on their feet, make instant decisions and chose immediately what and where they are going to buy.

It doesnt happen like that in their own jobs where they have taken time to learn the job, contacts are already made or time for research is allowed.

I went through something of the kind in my BTEC course where no one is in charge and we had to work as a team, it was a nightmare as the lazy ones wouldnt show up and the workers got left to do the lot. Yet we were all marked the same.

These candidates seem awfully short on common sense and also on general knowledge and how to use the telephone directory. I cringe watching their feeble efforts, yet they spout all sort of egotistical nonsense about their abilities.

One of the very rare times that I disagree with thenetworkbabe but I really think this is way off the mark.

Electronics is one of the 'hard' subjects - it's effectively a specialised form or a physics degree. The subjects that a lot of employers do not take very seriously are things such as 'media studies' (I wonder how the BBC and ITV consider them. ) and other that are often, somewhat unkindly, called 'made up' degrees.


Again, I'd have to disagree with the implicit assumption here that people with Firsts do not have rounded abilities - or are less likely to have them than others.

A small proportion may fit into that category because they are obsessive about their chosen subject but I've never found it to be a general problem. Nobody finds it particularly odd if someone with a 2/2 does something stupid whereas if they have a first it seems (to some) incongruous.

On the other hand it's a very popular TV and film trope.

Didn't Melody say she got a degree from one of the best universities in the world?

Honey, Oxford Brookes isn't even one of the best unis in the UK let alone the world.

She also said that she was taught by Al Gore and the Dalai Lama; I don't think she's entirely above bending the truth.

Maybe she once watched a TV programme or DVD with each of the people she claimed had taught her expounding their views.

On that basis I could claim a very impressive list of teachers without telling a lie.

it is like Lord Archer, who claimed to have been at Oxford when he attended the Teacher Training College.

Come to think about it, it's not even the best uni in Oxford!

Glad he slunk back under his rock after being released from jail.

On the other hand, he's been on the losing team in every single task, so he's failing to get his ideas across to everyone else. You could argue that his teams haven't benefited from him. So he could end up getting fired for much the same reason Ellie was.

Which is worse, someone who doesn't spot the problem, or someone who does but doesn't get it fixed?

(PS I do like Tom. I especially like how he enjoys the boardrooms even though he has lost. It is a genuine love of learning, I think. And it's worth noting that in none of those 5 losses was he blamed by his PM.)

I said the opposite (and actually agreed with you) - which is why Glenn stands out . People with first class degrees usually are recognisable as such - they have analytical ability (often getting there extremely quickly) , an ability to argue, skill at gathering in information, and, in most cases can get their point over clearly and convincingly. Somewhere in the process, they have also learnt how to discuss a topic with others and take in what they say. Thats true if you look at lawyers or historians or english students or doctors or cosmologists. Its become even more true as the sciences have become a subject more dominated by private schools, which are good at providing the general skills , universities have demanded their science graduates have more ability to argue on paper, and now students do a wider range of subjects at A level.

My point about electronics (or at least that course) is that it must be a very specialised degree, testing a particular range of skills if you can get a first in it displaying such a weak range of other skills. The contrast is with Tom who seems to have done a similarly technical degree (although innovation in the title suggests its a wider course) Tom seems to have picked up an ability to get along with people, put a point together well , and spot whats going wrong on the sales, advertising, cost or production fronts. He's not getting his point over enough, but thats, partly, because a lot of PMs have failed to listen properly to anyone, till its too late.

True , and Lord Sugar has a record for firing anyone for any reason of the moment.

On the other hand. though, in the kingdom of the blind the one eyed man may be king - even if the others don't listen or follow him? Lord Sugar seems to have picked up that Tom is making the right calls and no one else is. Tom may also benefit from being in a series where Lord Sugar seems to know more about who had what good or bad idea, and how decisions were made. He also doesn't have a really charismatic, competent, forceful competitor to go up against him - the forceful ones are going, or have their cards marked . He's also the one most likely to have an invention to offer at the end. Finally, we also have the preceedent of last year's Junior Apprentice where the winner won, against more forceful opposition, with much the same arguments in his favour?

LOL. I obviously didn't get a degree in English comprehension.

I see what you mean, now.

It is true that with the hard* sciences it is possible to get a first simply by being very good at the subject whereas most degrees involve a lot more interpretive work and there is frequently not one, definite, answer. Thus people in those subjects need to develop a more wide ranging analytical ability.


* 'Hard' here meaning that there are specific, correct, answers rather than that they are difficult. Maths is a 'hard' degree whereas History isn't. 'Hardness' is not indicative of how 'good' a degree is.

Disagree. There is plenty of analysing in sciences too!