The "class warfare thing" kinda hides the real issue. As I see it, the majority of the people who've gone onto Apprentice have 1st class degrees in this, that or whatever, or have ran a business or are running a business or whatever. But why does it have to be restricted to such a narrow set view?
I mean, wouldn't it have been great to have hired that guy who was on that Anne Widecombe show who was on "benefits" because the pay he was getting in a job was too low - this would have been a great chance for people like him to prove they weren't lazy or just wanted "benefits".
You could easily extend that to someone who never got any GCSEs, or perhaps even a homeless person (who obviousily wouldn't be revealed to be homeless until way, way into the series).
Sometimes I feel that the narrow field view of the apprentice gives the false impression that you need a degree to get ahead in business. Branson famousily never had a full compliment of GCSEs, and I'm pretty sure Sir Alan didn't get a degree until later on in his life.
Also, in the first show Sir Alan said that he had a converted house - for "posers like you", which seemed to me saying that Sir Alan has a chip on his shoulder for "toffs", or anyone who went to University, or maybe he just wanted to bring him down to his level.
And what's with the obsession with doing stuff that Sir Alan did when he was younger? It seems that the only way to win Sir Alan's trust/admiration (if he has any) is to do the tasks he did when he was growing up. Yes, I understand the point he's making, but to run the idea 2-3 epsiodes back-to-back... we get the point!
Sometimes, the Apprentice hasn't really learnt any lessons from the US version. They had a whole series of "book smarts vs street smarts" and had different themes/ideas for each series, whereas the UK version seems to be the same process each series.