Comments

I gotta agree that I'm root ing for the Street Smarts (and I have an MBA) because it seems that too often the degree doesn't give you anything more than a credential. The real world is the real world no matter whether you went to school for 10 years or 20. My wife, who's starting her own business, loves the show because she finds that she learns some valuable lessons from it and I cannot argue (she also devoured Re-Imagine from cover to cover). My only issue with the show is that the situations are a bit contrived but hey, it works.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at February 4, 2005 10:41 AM

I don't think The Apprentice has the chutzpa to deliver the high profile uppercut to "a formal education". Suppose you'll find out before long.

Posted by Gerald Buckley at February 4, 2005 10:45 AM

My wife and I are also big fans of the show. This season is starting off much like the second one. The candidates do not impress us as much as the previous season. Was it the same way at the beginning of season one? Seems like the group as a whole in season one was much more impressive than season two, and season three doesn't even compare.

Maybe there are some who will rise to the surface as the season progresses (Stephanie?).

Although I loved the first season, it seems like the show has degraded into incessant product plugs that "trump" coming up with creative contests. How many times can you ask teams to hock something on the streets of Manhattan?

So, the contestants are less impressive, the contests are becoming re-treads, and how many massive projects can the Donald afford to give to "game show" winners? I think the show is in trouble if the ship isn't corrected.

Posted by Dustin at February 4, 2005 10:46 AM

I'm an Apprentice junkie who, along with my 14 year old son, has closely watched all 3 seasons. He has a unique perspective on "street smarts" verses "book smarts" since I'm a "street smart" computer geek with no degree and his mom is a well published Phd. I'm hoping that season 3 will validate what he see's at home; that is that neither side has a clear advantage.

Like Dustin, I'm finding the candidate selection lacking. It feels like the "Burnett" producer side is doing to much of the pre-show candidate screening/selection process and looks solely for Survivor-type incendiary personalities. I think the "Trump" business team needs to take a more active role in the pre-show candidate screening process.

Since I'm playing producer now, may I also dare suggest that they spend more time showing the business side of the competition and a little less on the candidate rhetoric? While I understand that relationships are a foundation of business, I'd like to see more emphasis on the idea generation and implementation process. One great example of what I want to see more of was this seasons toilet fiasco. Brian drove his team potty by insisting that they buy new toilets instead of refurbishing their existing toilets, thereby flushing his teams chance for success(sorry, I couldn't resist). In that same episode, the "book smarts" team had a pool party that may have contributed far more toward their positive customer reviews then their room renovation skills. Doesn't Tom always advocate getting to know your customers and mixing a little celebration in with your work?!

Posted by Charles at February 4, 2005 12:18 PM

I agree with Charles about showing more of the business side of the competition.

All: What do you think about Martha Stewart having her version of the show?

Posted by Gabriel Salcido at February 4, 2005 3:27 PM

I am a fan of The Apprentice and feel, as my roomate put it last night, "It sucks but it's the best show on primetime right now" (besides 24).

I was a huge fan of the first season and an even bigger fan of "The Donald" since before anyone ever coined the term "reality tv".

I'm in total agreement with Charles and even mentioned to my brother last night that you could clearly see the Burnett influence more in this season compared to season 1 and season 2.

Personally, if I were a contestant on last night's episode I would have been pretty irritated with the "quitter" who cried whined, and nearly walked off during the second episode and whimped out during episode 3. Who does that? I mean how many thousands off talented, qualified professionals were turned down so this incompetent lump of dead weight could waste her time and that of everyone else.

As business people we all would prefer the show focus on getting "back to business" but the "reality" is the show isn't really for professionals or entrepreneurs, it's for the masses and the masses eat the emotional, conflicted, garbage up and comeback for more which sells more advertising. Of course since reality tv is far cheaper to produce than quality sitcoms or dramas while they charge their advertisers the same or likely more for ad time you can see how producers and networks are going to ride this all the way to to the last viewer. Wouldn't you?

Anyway, that's my two cents....

Go Street Smarts!

Posted by Bronson at February 4, 2005 4:36 PM

Oh yeah, by the way if you didn't know, every friday on CNBC during Power Lunch the previous night's firee from The Apprentice is interviewed.

You can find the CNBC guest list here
http://moneycentral.msn.com/Content/CNBCTV/TV_Info/GuestList.asp

Posted by bronson at February 4, 2005 4:45 PM

I've watched all 3 seasons. so far i'm hardly interested in season 3, the concept is good, but as others pointed out Burnett, now very rich, is trying to shake the series up. the nice thing about season 1 was the freshness. now you can feel Burnett all over the place and it sucks.

if something doesn't catalyze soon, i think the franchise is in trouble, IMHO, just cause my viewing has gone from eager to whenever.

i'll take 24...anytime.
kurt.

Posted by kurt at February 4, 2005 5:13 PM

I'd go with street smarts. Here's a somewhat longwinded story to illustrate my point.

Stephen’s House is a transitional shelter for low income, homeless, HIV infected adults (in Greenville, SC). In addition to being homeless and HIV positive, over 80% of Stephen’s House residents have a drug or alcohol addiction. In July 2000 I became the Clinical Director of Stephen’s House.

My job was to salvage a deteriorating program. When I began work, the agency was beset by problems. The shelter had a history of residents using drugs in the house. Also, there was a very high failure rate. Most residents were ejected from the program for violating rules such as using drugs, failing to perform maintenance chores, keeping guests in their rooms overnight, or failing to observe the night time curfew. Turnover of both residents and staff were extremely high.

At this time, the house was organized hierarchically. A house manager served as the boss. It was his responsibility to create and enforce rules and to assign chores. He reported to the agency director. The manager was very strict and organized. However, after living on the street for months or years, most residents at Stephen’s House resented and rejected authority. They constantly rebelled against the house manager.

Over the course of a year, I instituted a different approach at the house. First, we formed a Residents’ Association. All residents were members. The association was given full responsibility for maintaining the house, decorating the house, assigning chores, cooking meals, enforcing curfew, and scheduling appointments to the HIV clinic. I, as Clinical Co-ordinator, assumed the role of consultant to the association. My primary task was to create an exciting vision for them-- and to give advice and encouragement when needed (a pretty easy job, actually).

The results were powerful. Within two months, turnover plummeted. The residents solicited donations from friends and relatives and organized a yard sale. They used the money earned to buy plants and artwork for the house. As they assumed responsibility for the house, they began to feel ownership. Soon, the residents were enforcing the curfew and house rules with severe strictness. They first dealt with these infractions on their own, but referred the matter to me if the case was serious-- or if they could not work out a solution on their own.

In the case of drug use, we decided to institute a drug testing policy in order to help the residents “maintain recovery”. The program was carried out with a constructive, rather than a punitive, approach. Residents also organized an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting at the house. Drug related infractions and expulsions dropped dramatically.

In the case of chores, cooking, and house maintenance, the residents took complete responsibility. The house was kept spotlessly clean. Meals were cooked on time. Needed repairs were reported immediately. The more the residents managed the house, the better it got.

Once the basics of maintenance and infractions were addressed, the association turned its attention to physical, social, and mental health matters. They planned a weekly social gathering at the house which I helped facilitate. I recruited volunteers from the community to join the residents for dinner, games, and outings. Residents prepared dinner for their guests and otherwise served as hosts.

The volunteer and social programs rapidly expanded. Volunteers and residents began to collaborate and decided to create a mentoring program. Interested volunteers were paired with one or more residents. They met with them once per week to discuss problems, take them to medical appointments, or refer them to jobs.

One volunteer, a nutritionist, initiated a weekly nutrition program at the shelter. Each week she gave a talk on nutrition and its importance for those infected with HIV. She then prepared a healthy meal with the residents help. Over time, this program evolved into a weekly general health seminar. Residents requested specific topics or speakers and I scheduled them.

The Stephen’s House Residents’ Association was extremely successful. Although its members were “near the bottom of the socio-economic ladder”, they quickly became champions of self-responsibility, commitment, and innovation when given a vision and the means to realize it. Although not a completely flat organization (I still had veto power), the house did operate according to "participatory management" principles.

The stars, of course, were the residents. None of them knew anything about "mangement" or "social work". But they had tremendous street smarts, literally. They used these smarts to create an incredibly sucessful program. I did very little other than get out of their way (I being lazy by nature).

Its amazing what people can do if you just stop trying to control them.

Posted by AJ Hoge at February 7, 2005 1:43 PM

The Apprentice is also one of my favorites shows to watch. Let's face in today's TV schedule there is very little else to look forward to. I am just really dumbfounded by the lack of creativiy of 'project managers'. Specially for the lack of information sharing that happens between the PM and his/her team. It seems that as soon as one of them assume the PM role, that person becomes some sort of island that holds information. I have yet to see one of them come down from their high chair and negotiate a winning solution with their team.

Let me tell you, if I ever I was in the position of being the last one of two candidates, I would offer to share part of my one year salary with the staff assigned to me ... it would really give them an incentive to help me win !!!

Posted by diego o at February 14, 2005 10:13 PM

I think you'd have to give them more than $$ to motivate them properly. How much of that salary would you have to give up in order to get them to work passionately?

I'd rather sit down with them and quickly find out what their goals were when they first interviewed to be on the show. Then show them how they can still achieve them (with the exception of working for Trump) by applying themselves to this last task.

Posted by Dustin at February 17, 2005 12:16 PM