What I found shocking in this years Apprentice was that someone who left school aged 15, with barely any education, was able to compete against and ultimately defeat university educated minds with degrees and MBAs.

It makes me wonder if maybe there are some problems with the British Education System. Yet, nowadays, there seems to be less and less opportunity for people without university degrees in the jobs market.

Once in the work place..common sense and drive often prevail..

It's not what you know, its who you know. The final just proves that. Winning by sucking up is a low strategy in my book, and it's always men that do it. Never on this show have I seen a woman compare herself to a young Lord Sugar and try and tug on his heartstrings for an easier ride.

It is still recovering from not realising when Tony Blair said he would send more people to University that he would do it by making A Levels much easier.

Then you had the poor thing in the hands of Michael Gove who kept changing his mind before the kids had a chance to go through his latest masterplan.

I can't believe that Alan Sugar was suckered in by the old "I'm just like you were like at my age Lord Sugar" chestnut.

No sour grapes on my parts as I wish Joseph well, but I found both finalists equally unimpressive.

I don't find it 'Shocking', but I do agree.

Full marks for the tabloid-style headline, though

Joseph didn't know any of them beforehand Vana had plenty of cultural capital that she used to her advantage in meetings all the time to appear polished, intellectual and most importantly a "good fit" in business. Both her parents are professionals so she's had the benefit of a lifetime absorbing the social graces that grease the wheels so much at this level of business.
Joseph didn't have any of those benefits, in fact his family probably advised him (if they gave him any career advice at all!) that working hard and getting a trade behind him is the pinnacle of success. Joseph himself wanted more and saw TA as a means of getting there. He did his research well (not sure if he read the book as a kid or just before the show) and used his own cultural capital in convincing Sugar that he was modelling himself on him.
He used what he had the same as the rest of them, except he had a whole lot less to start with so good on him I say. I dont see it as sucking up any more than Vana's "both of my parents are actually architects in New York" to the developer. The more common ground you find, the easier the deal is to seal.

How much more intimidating for Joseph and Mergim and Charleine to defend themselves in the boardroom without a lifetime of being groomed for success, and without being the most articulate people in the room because they haven't had a great education. I admire them all for that.

In my view Joseph's plan wasn't particularly good.

A plumbing franchise? Not new. The green element was dropped during a meeting and replaced by smart technology he'd not even heard of. Not being funny but HIVE anyone?

However Vana's plan was flawed due to insufficient funding, and Richard's plan was flawed due to the existing-business-with-brother issue.

Not sure I agree. In fact I think it's the other way round.

For every "Joseph" there are 10,000 kids who don't get qualifications and it scuppers their life chances. I know a family who are in crisis because their 14 year old son isn't making any effort at school cos he thinks he's gonna make it big as a YouTube star.

It is quite right to say that having a degree doesn't mean you necessarily have the skills to be a successful entrepreneur, but Joseph has succeeded despite being kicked out of school not because of it.

That's a rather sexist attitude, don't you remember last year and the diamond scandal. A female used her charms to gain an unfair price, if that's not sucking up I don't know what is.

And it's usually the females who use their "sex" to gain an advantage in this program.

The sucking up probably didn't hurt Joseph's chances, but in all likelihood he would have won no matter what, due to the cost issues around Vana's business. If anything, the "I'm just like you, Lord Sugar" strategy would have benefited him more if he were facing Richard in the finale, since Sugar's very much a straight-shooter while Richard is, well, Tricky Dicky.

I did not go to University due to family pressures, but did the vocational route at 16 so it was all paid for - this was early' 80's before every FE College became a "University" and A-levels were devalued.

I come across modern graduates who are taught at Uni that they know EVERYTHING, and believe that sincerely when they leave.
I work in food, and the number of times I come across people who claim to have skills and Industrial expertise in a particular food product, then clearly don't, and all I get is " Oh- we made it in a kitchen at University".

The other problem is graduates do not get much a broad experience base once they start work. There are some companies that give good training, but most just stick them in at the deep end. Unfortunately they then only know "what they know".
They only know how to do something exactly like their employer does it - if others in the same industry do things a different way - they are scuppered.

As mentioned above - you cannot teach common sense.

I found it amusing more than shocking. Some people seem to go to university today for subjects that you used to learn on the job or at night school - now it's 'I have a degree in document duplication and file order strategies'

In the end I wanted Joseph to win if only because he didn't use all the ridiculous corporate speak that seems to flow to readily out of some graduates mouths these days. It makes them sound, initially, more articulate and intelligent than people like Joseph, but in the end it's all meaningless crap, just there to cover up for the fact that they have nothing worth while to say.


There have been contestants in the past who have compared themselves to LS and not made it anywhere near the final, I don't think that's why Joseph won. His business plan was better and more likely to make money. Vana's would involve going to find venture capitalists in a few months time, all she really wanted was Sir Alan's name to be able to bandy about to get more investment in the bottomless pit of online dating.


It's true. The France/Kent task this year for example, where the women flirted shamelessly with the glass sellers in the hotel (or possibly on the boat).

I recall the lines in "Frasier"

"Women use sex to get what you want,
Men, however, cannot use sex to get what we want...as sex IS what we want "

It's not so much about degrees anymore, like it was say 10-15 years ago. Nowadays there are people who take on Diploma courses, short courses, specialist courses related to a specific field of their interest they wish to excel in and take it from there to make money. I've seen Sage Certified, MS Excel/VBA certified people with no degrees or educational background except these very courses and go on with experience to make a lot of money.

^^Yes this year with the glasses salesman who just happened to overhear that they needed glasses. He starts at €200, they batter they're eyelashes and he drops it to €40 (or something). This practice should be stopped and the purchase nulled and void.

I remember having to teach the Uni lecturers how things actually work, was fun explaining how a mag tape drive (the swirly thing you always see in movies) works and how that a program that selects records on a criteria cannot know how many will be written until the query has been ran.....and then you meet the resultant people straight out of uni and you can see over the first few months the reality tearing holes in their fragile little bubble of knowledge.

A lot of that's because degrees have over-specialized. Used to be if you did say, a degree in English, you could then pick from a wide raft of career options in that general skillset area with a reasonable chance of getting something.

Nowadays in order to go into - well, basically any job, they want you to have a degree in that particular exact thing, and if you don't - "well, didn't you plan for that before you did your degree if you were looking to work in this field?" is the attitude.

I was recently unemployed for a short while and tried to get a job in my local library only to be told without a four-year degree in librarianship I wasn't getting through the door. Seriously?? And good luck finding a night school to get some qualifications outside of a big city.

That is, it's not that stupid degrees are giving people useless over-specified qualifications off the bat; in my experience, its that the jobs - for whatever reason - are demanding them and so the courses are created.

When did he say he'd make A levels easier? the desire to have at least 50% of people going to University is a good one.

Is it really that shocking? If they were competing for a job then okay, it's extremely hard to get on with no qualifications, but we are talking about being an entrepreneur. If you think of people that founded huge companies, there seems to be a pattern of dropping out of university. So perhaps LAS sees a *true* entrepreneur as more than an education and there may be some value in having no fallback that pushes you to succeed.

I don't think there's a flaw in the education system on that front, for every clever idea there has to be a lot of worker drones making it.

He didn't what the poster is implying in that by making A Levels easier, it would allow more people the opportunity to go to university. Universities have become wise and now apply even stricter entry requirements.

^^ Quite often entrepreneur's have dropped out of higher education. I personally think it's to do with education now has to follow such strict guidelines that it doesn't allow for "free thinking" hence why a lot of students lack any "common sense or street smarts" it's beaten out of them. Education like the driving test is not about learning anymore, but about passing exams.

I agree. The whole 50% going to uni has devalued the power of having a degree. Its a good way to get through the door but it means absolutely nothing in the great scheme of the working world.

Common sense, thinking on your feet and being able to adapt are far more important than what you've been taught imo and Joseph had those qualities in spades.

Personally, I think its brilliant that someone has shown that you can still make something of yourself, despite a bad start in life

That's a fair point, although in certain cases I think "because they saw the idea they were about to steal would probably get done without them if they didn't move fast" also holds some weight.

Great post and it reflects my thoughts on the winner. I didn't particularly like any apprentice candidates this year apart from Ruth but I think Joseph winning is a positive thing as it shows determination can get you past a disadvantaged background and I think that's a message worth transmitting.