It's very much a personal view, but I got the impression that for YA they were looking more for credible candidates, whereas with the adult version it's a mix of a few credibles and a lot of 'characters'.

The driver is somewhat different too. The adult version is now very much an 'entertainment' show, where the aim is to keep the audience constantly laughing or up in arms. With YA it was more about showcasing what teenagers could be capable of in business. Also, you can't be seen to be overtly setting up situations where we're supposed to laugh at children - a strict no-no.

Also, I think the tasks on YA tended to be less pressurised and more structured with more hand-holding (do X, then do Y then do Z). In part this was because of the various rules about how long you can make kids work every day - we'd never see them working deep into the evening - but also because the producers had an interest in making them look good, not bad.

Whadaya reckon?

having inept social misfits who have delusions of self importance and grandeur falling out of their ivory towers and being scraped up and fed to the wolves makes better tv and improves ratings as it gives the rest of the nation a glimmer of hope as everyone in front of the screen will say "I could have done better than that".

True. It's just a classier version of the Jeremy Kyle Show, in some respects.

True. And yet how many people, if actually put in the situation the Apprentices find themselves in on each task, could actually do better?

There are few sports better or more enjoyable than Monday morning quarterbacking. Everyone's an expert in hindsight!

I'm not entirely sure what the law is, but all of the candidates on Young Apprentice were over 16, so it's not like they're young children. I've always thought that the tasks seemed just as difficult as on the adult programme, from what we saw of them.

I think that the calibre of people who apply would be different as well. For an adult show, pretty much anyone who thinks they know a bit about business can do it. For something aimed at younger people, they'd really need a lot more motivation to get on and do it - I think that would attract stronger candidates to apply.

I'm not entirely clear on the law either, but I'm sure I read somewhere once that they restrict the length of their 'working day' and streamlined some of the tasks to help them do that (and to provide a little light guidance). For instance - correct me if my memory's faulty! - I think the series 2 advertising task required the teams to draw a storyboard as a helpful stepping stone to help them create the ad.

As I say, I'm not sure, but that's the impression I got from a half-remembered interview and watching the show.

I would imagine that the teams would do that anyway. It's generally the done thing if you are making a film.

Anyway, the teams didn't have to. Harry M's team were criticised by Nick for not making one. Zara's team did, but that was expected because Zara made films generally, so you'd expect her to want to make a storyboard.

Yeah pretty much agree with the general consensus here.

Everyone knows that the opening blurb 'These are 16 of the most successful business candidates in Britain today' (or whatever it is now) is literally that. Blurb.

This has always been a TV Show, a reality series, a vehicle for Sugar to build his brand further, get a load of PR and exposure for both himself and his company, and turn himself into a bigger public figure which will have a direct impact on his clout in certain situations.

The price for all that? A snip at £100K job/ £250K investment. If he get's a good employee/ partner at the end of it and they make him money, then that is a bonus.

At no point has this ever really, truly been a show to find the best business people in the country.

So this OP is why I believe they don't have more capable candidates- the primary objective here is to get ratings and exposure, and the 'characters' they select give them exactly that.

I'm sure this has been posted before, but it's so relevant to the question asked, it deserves posting again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ss-59fi4nM

Although it's a comedy sketch, it's pretty on the money - *this* is the reason why we don't have credible contestants

Ha ha, very good. Love Mitchell and Webb.Genuine

Yeah I think this nails it pretty much. Scarily accurate!

The tasks on the Young Apprentice were definitely generally a little less involved. For instance in the last two series of the adult programme, the advertising task has involved creating a brand, shooting an advert, and building a website. The Junior equivalent was the same, but without the website. The product design task on the Junior Apprentice tends to have a narrower design (write a cookbook, design a toy, create a camping product) making it easier to focus ideas down than the adult equivalent - "create something for the home", "create a piece of flat pack furniture".

Obviously there are some tasks that are more or less the same whichever version you're on (The 8/10 Items task for instance) but generally the kids seemed to have an easier time of it. I doubt you'd get anything as fiddly as the "Smell What Sells" task for instance.

The Junior version tasks actually are probably closer to the tasks from the first few series of the adult version, which were much simpler. Generally the adult tasks have got more complicated as series have gone on, to fit candidates who are getting increasingly game savvy. Even naifs like Jason are saying things like "I shouldn't have been PM on one of the product design tasks" now, so you have to keep making things harder to keep them tripping over their feet. In Series 1/2/3, you never would have got something like the Away Day task, where you have to put on a themed event, hire in external staff, manage a budget, keep an eye on how to keep it relevant to business, cook your own food, negotiate with a potentially difficult client, have a rainy day contingency plan, and do public speaking, all whilst being forced to do absolutely arse about face things like "pick your theme before you even meet your client". Back then it was more like "here are some cars - flog them" or "shoot an advert for a shoe".

In Series 3 they had to create a website for a task. Navdeep's team was criticised for it not having much about the prices on there. Although that wasn't the same task as the one where they had to shoot an advert, so maybe that doesn't count...

I thought I was a pretty big fan of the Apprentice but I take my hat off to some of you guys on here!

I'm either less of a fan than I thought or my memory is starting to fade ha ha. I can hardly remember a load of detail from 2 years ago let alone series 3!

This was Series 3 of Young Apprentice. It was on in November and December last year.

Ah, ok. Phew! I was momentarily amazed at your recall/ slightly worried about my own!!

I watched the first 2 series of Young Apprentice but never bothered with the 3rd one. Worth watching?

For me it never appealed as much as the regular show.

I disagree with you, I think that Young Apprentice was better than the main show. It had more interesting characters, in my mind.

I would say Series 3 is worth watching, but I don't think it's as good as the first two.

2 >1 >3 I'd say. 3 definitely had the slight air of the production crew knowing they weren't going to get a fourth run (although Sugar didn't seem to notice, bless him). But if you're not into it based on the first two, then I wouldn't bother with the third.

Ok thanks, I may well check it out. I think maybe I might be slightly harsh/ ageist re YF!

I really liked Series 1, but I thought it had one big flaw, and that is that it was really obvious from early on that either Arjun or Zoe would win.

I don't see why the production team bothered less about Series 3 because there were rumours about it not getting a fourth series. It hadn't been confirmed at that stage; if anything they should have made more of an effort on it to get more ratings so that they could get a fourth series.

I thought Kirsty was fairly plausible as well. At times, mostly when Zoe was getting the worst of her "That Girl" edit (like when she hugged a crying Hibah whilst rolling her eyes at her), she seemed the most likely female.

Obviously it pales in comparison with the unpredictability of Series 2 though.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed JA 1&2 but part of me probably thought it was kids playing at adults, or the starter compared to the main dish as it were. I think I just preferred watching adults who had genuinely left jobs and were desperate to win at all costs to get the job, that appealed more to me. I'm probably being a bit unfair to Junior Apprentice and having pre conceptions, I know. After all it's just a rather additive and entertaining tv show right?

I'm half tempted to watch JA3 now!

I thought Kirsty was great. In fact, I liked everyone in that series bar Rhys and Adam. It was just clear that one of those two would win.

Capable people = boring TV.

Sorry but I prefer entertainment over the above.

Katie Hopkins was capable. Was she boring TV?

Can't remember.