I disagree. Plenty of companies hire young, inexperienced individuals with potential. Heck, didn’t Trump himself extend an offer to young Andy?
Besides, Randal also made a huge point about how much he respected Rebecca’s talents. Did he really mean what he said or not?
As I’ve pointed out before, if he didn’t believe that Rebecca was ready for this opportunity, he could have said so. That wasn’t the rationale that he gave, though. Any suggestions to that effect are just revisionism.
Well, he also said “not tonight,” which might imply that he was not saying she shouldn’t be hired at all, but just that she shouldn’t be hired as part of the show finale. That hadn’t occurred to me until reading some TWOP message boards today, and some peosple were suggesting the possibility that he only intended to ask that she not be given a “winner’s” status on the show and that she be hired separately from the context of the show. He might have been saying, “Hire her tomorrow but give me my night as the winner” and that it just came out badly.
I wouldn’t. And neither would Randall, at least assuming that the four tons of praise he heaped on Rebecca was not entirely disingenuous. There was no greater history of “failure” in the room than Donald Trump, who lost hundreds of millions of dollars and took hundreds of people down with him a few years back. But failure in that sense is one stepping stone to success. Calling her a failure while she was in the final two is on par with calling Donald a failure now. People learn from mistakes — at least, sharp people do. And she impressed me as already having grown tremendously, and exibiting qualities for continued phenomenal growth. You and I are simply going to disagree over whether she was qualified to hire, but if she wasn’t, then it was Donald’s mistake to bring her on the show and take her to the final task. But I think Donald did find her to be qualified. His only reservation at all about her was over a bit of possibly misplaced loyalty. He constantly talks about the strength of character required to work out of New York, and focused most of his praise of her on exactly that. She was qualified, and certainly as an apprentice in the ordinary sense of the term, likely would have grown into whatever role Donald might have shaped for her. Randall’s opportunity with the question was not one of charity, or one of deciding the fate of Donald’s company. It was an opportunity to put his actions where his mouth was, to lead by example, to reward someone he said he considered deserving, and to do something good for the Trump family of companies.
I am not a fan of the show but was there as a Seatfiler. When Randall who my friend was rooting for said Trump should not offer he a job many people in the audience let out a moan/boo. That decision did not go over well with those of us there but in the end Donald could have done what he wanted.
I liked Randal all the way through, until the last episode. I think he came off as an egotistical jerk. Even when Trump was asking them about the other (I can’t remember the question) and Rebecca said nothing bad about him and he turned and was really cutting.
I thought it was petty for Randal to say no, he could’ve said, “Why don’t you hire her for the project I didn’t chose” or something.
He reminded me of my two-year-old daughter.
When she doesn’t want to share.
I read those speculations as well. Frankly, this explanation rings hollow to me. It would have been much simpler and much more straightforward to say that she should be considered for some other position. Instead, he merely touted the show’s title as evidence that there should be only one apprentice – an answer that’s decidedly more contrived and unconvincing.
I also think it’s reading too much into the phrase “not tonight.” After all, why not offer Rebecca some non-Apprentice position on that night… or at the very least, broach the possibility? Frankly, I think that pinning one’s hopes on the “not tonight” phrase sounds like a bit of wishful thinking.
Besides, Randal must have known about this possibility for weeks. If he merely meant that she should be hired on some other date, why not say so? There’s already been ample precedent for this, since Trump previously extended offers to both Amy and Andy.
Randal he had weeks to prepare a response, and he’s supposedly a polished speaker. If he meant that Rebecca should be considered for some other slot, he could have surely said so.
Did Trump offer any explanation for why he thought Rebecca was good enough to be offered a spot?
Her record wasn’t stellar at all and her lost at the end wasn’t even a close one. I could buy Alla as a “co-Apprentice”, but Rebecca? No. Hell, if I had been Tana from the previous season, I would have been kinda pissed. She was leagues better than Rebecca, even though she did show herself to be kind of bitchy towards the end.
I don’t think it’s safe to assume that Randall knew that. No other season had two winners as a possibility. And the promos always emphasize how the candidate pool will be reduced to ONE APPRENTICE. No consolation prizes.
Again, I think Trump sucks for even presenting to the idea to Randall. Who knows how he interpreted the question? Maybe Randall thought Trump meant that Rebecca would be a “co-Apprentice” rather than just a regular employee. You’re elated you just won, everyone and their Mama is watching you, cheering for you, and then your new boss asks to share the spotlight with the “loser”? Perhaps Randall didn’t have enough time to really think through what Trump was asking, and then acted on instinct with his classless answer. I don’t know how I would have act in such a situation. Shock, confusion, and perhaps rudeness. I dunno, but it was wrong to put the guy in such a position on live TV.
It also seemed like Rebecca was given special favor all throughout the season. She was given extra points for loyalty to a basketcase and then allowed to slide after that for no discernable reason. She wasn’t a horrible player, or even just “good”, but she wasn’t an Alla–who I thought was a powerhouse despite her hard nose. It was clear Trump liked Rebecca for reasons beyond tangible contributions to projects. (This season was messed up, IMHO, not only because of that but because of the willy-nilly firing of folks who didn’t deserve it. No wonder none of the candidates were really cheering for Rebecca at the end). Nothing wrong with a teacher having a “pet”, but you can’t expect the valedictorian to feel good when the teacher is still rubbing the pet’s head even during the graduation ceremony.
It sucks that the first "minority (hate that term) Apprentice has to have this pall hanging over him. And I’m sure the thought has entered some minds (justifiably or not) that Trump wouldn’t have put a white candidate with Randall’s credentials in such a “hot” seat. I dunno…but it certaintly wasn’t a smooth move on either Trump or Randall’s parts IMHO.
Given the rampant speculation in the weeks before the live finale, I find it difficult to believe that Randal would have been ignorant of this possiblity.
Moreover, even if he were oblivious, I think it’s still greatly contrived to interpret his “not tonight” comment as meaning that Rebecca should be considered for some other position. If that’s what he intended, he sure stated it in an awfully roundabout fashion.
Trump didn’t exactly cut him off before he had a chance to finish, y’know.
Quite a few of them. He praised her profusely during the live board meeting. (And had done so many times before.)
Her loss at the end? She won at the end. Or do you mean against Randall? There was no announcement of any loss against Randall, unless you consider the hiring to be that. But since he offered to hire Rebecca too, that wouldn’t hold water.
There were lots of twists this year, including firings of whole teams. RTV shows are always full of twists, rules changes, and misdirections from promos.
Possibly. But Randall will encounter people who suck during his career. And frankly, he seems just as cold to people who don’t suck as people who do. The charity lady wasn’t the first to deal with Randall who thought he was aloof and removed from the purpose of the task.
Are you kidding? That’s what the whole show is about — making the tough decisions and doing it quickly.
Maybe so. And if this were a show about feelings and relationships, some of that would matter.
That whole train of thought is utter nonsense.
monstro, I tried to ‘reply with quote’ to your post, but it would have ended up with my quoting the entire thing,a nd that gets annoying. I agree with everything you wrote 100%.
Yeah, ok, all right, Randal was a jerk. We get it. But he’s still The Apprentice. And Rebecca lost. Trump can hire her or anyone anytime he wants. It’s just a tv show.
I agree with you that Rebecca was a favorite of Trump’s from the very start. . . but I think Randle was, too. The Randle affection I understand; Rebecca’s? Not so much! Far from proving Loyalty, Rebecca’s endorsement of Toral (the obvious basketcase) showed that she misjudged character and talent. It was a matter of chemistry between The Donald and Rebecca, I think. Otherwise, I just don’t get it.
And we are here to discuss the ethics and ramifications of the outcome. Is that not fair game for discussion?
Saying “He’s still the apprentice” is pretty much a non-answer.
Again, I think he explained it often. He admired her loyalty, her stamina, her determination — character traits that he considers to be critical in a good leader. He said that most people would have run home crying to Momma if they broke an ankle. (Remember Omarosa and the speck of dust that fell in her hair, which she called a “concussion”.) The notion floating about that he wanted to hire her for her looks is ridiculous. He can pick any beautiful woman he wants out of the crowd any time; plus, he’s married to one. And like he said, this is not a game to him. It’s serious business.
I agree with all of this, Liberal, but I just wish there was some consistency . The Trumpster has fired people with every bit of plunkiness, intelligence, and determination that Rebecca possesses, in both this season and previous ones. And I’m sure there’s going to be another Tiny-Tim-Little-Engine-That-Could down the line who should be fired as well. He’s putting himself in an awkward situation by giving such obvious favor to an “above average” candidate this one time. People aren’t going to trust he’ll make a fair decision if his criteria become less than objective.
This is a ultimately job interview, yes, and hiring people often comes down to intangible qualities. But it’s unfair to expect Randall to see all the good stuff about Rebecca that Trump obviously does. Perhaps Randall saw parts to Rebecca that he didn’t particularly care for and he didn’t want to put his own neck on the line by suddenly backing her. If Trump wants her on the team, HE should make that decision. Not put it off on her competitor, in front of everyone.
I admire determination, loyalty (within reason, which I don’t think Rebecca exhibited initially), stamina, and all that, but I don’t think it supercedes competency and solid leadership style.
There’s a fine line between being loyal and showing poor judgment, and Rebecca crossed into the territory of the latter with her inordinate support of Toral. I don’t know why Trump would be so impressed with that.
I think Randall suspected that DT was going to try to hire both of them. His main mission in the boardroom was not to convince DT that he was worthy of being hired; it was to sell himself as the sole apprentince. He found DT’s indecisiveness insulting because in his eyes there should have been no question of who was the most qualified to win the job. I think most of the castmembers, even those who liked Rebecca, knew that she was not as strong of a leader as she came across in the boardroom. Her record speaks to that. (Am I the only one who remembers the whole “Tethno” fiasco? Come on!)
Randall’s mistake was that he let DT’s equivocating get the best of him. Since he suspected that a tie was in the cards, he should have gone into the boardroom better prepared to handle whatever DT was going to throw at him. If it had been me, I would have not let DT off the hook so easily. I would have said “With all due respect, Mr. Trump, that is your call to make. Not mine.” That way, DT would have had to take responsibility for his own decisions, and not shift the burden on the guy he just hired.
'Cause that was just slimy. It’s bad enough that he wanted to hire two people during the finale (one of which was not all that deserving), but it was terrible that he put Randal on the spot like that. And I agree with, monstro. It was a bad PR move for Trump. The first time a black man is appointed as The Apprentice, but he has to agree to have a tag-a-long. Or else he’s an asshole. That sucks on so many levels.
Good to return “home” to the SDMB. I was in a conversation on another board, and every time the conversation moved from “I hate Randal” or “I love Rebecca” the mods would try to shut it down and issue bans. Whatever.
I don’t remember the verbatim response from Randal but he never stated that Rebecca wasn’t qualified to work for Trump, or that he should not hire her at another point in time. Rather, he stated correctly that the show has always promoted itself by saying “there can only be one Apprentice.”
In a matter of days (or minutes) people would forget that Randal was the winner and Rebecca was the runner-up. The press could freely choose which Apprentice finalist to interview, companies could invite either to speak at events, etc. It would only be a matter of time before the “who’s better? Randal or Rebecca?” article would appear. Despite his sacrifices - leaving his family at a difficult time after his grandmother’s death, for instance - it would appear that the two were more or less equal.
I was not initially a huge Randal fan. He got the “saint’s edit” throughout and I did not see any real “wow” moves from him in any of the tasks, with the exception of the Learning Annex task. But I noticed two things:
In a competition known for having “alliances” and enemies among the contestants, NO ONE saw Randal as anything less than exceptional. Clay and Alla, who never have a good word to say about anybody, never once spoke negatively about Randal. Thirteen weeks with people would probably force most of us to detect a flaw or two. Not so with this guy.
Randal’s management style was very much in sync with who he was. He didn’t become someone else, he remained Randal and was able to encourage his staff to work to the best of their ability.
So by this final task, I noticed this, and thought that Rebecca earned a lot of mileage from her association with him rather than any particular task she performed. Recall that she was 1-2 as a PM, and both losses were in large part her responsibility - the misspelled cake and choosing the wrong vibe with the Nigerian artist. She should have been fired for the cake debacle but somehow scapegoated the event planner instead of that idiot Toral… and managed to earn some capital from Trump in doing so!
She’s a pretty face, a good speaker, and competitent, but still the least impressive Apprentice finalist to date. It’s not like Randal went up against Kendra or Bill… that would warrant some consideration. Randal, a 37 year old CEO went up against Rebecca, a 23 year old journalist who did quite well, and WON. Case closed. Trump can hire Rebecca on the DL anytime he wants, but not on his Apprentice-crowning night.
Last, I find it fascinating (from the other boards I frequent) that people who thought so highly of Randal - the hyperbole, people! - now think he’s a dick and an egomaniac. I understand people saying, “Wow, I wasn’t happy with his choice,” or “I love him a little less than I used to,” but straight up hate.
Trump’s question was incredibly ambiguous. He didn’t make it clear whether he was asking if he should hire Rebecca ever or if he should make her a co-apprentice. When he said “should I hire Rebecca too?” I took it as make her a co-apprentice.
Given that DT wasn’t clear what he meant, I think Randal gave the best answer he could. He never said Rebecca wouldn’t be good fit for the organization. Instead he focused on his belief that there should be only one apprentice and left the door open should Trump want to hire her later in some other capacity.
Sure, in business you sometimes get more than one good candidate for a job and hire them both. However, despite DT’s protestations to the contrary, this show is a competition, not a documentary on his hiring practices. If it were, he could hire any number of people and not just the final 2. He could also decide none of them make the grade (probably a wise choice in season 2).
Since I see this as a competition, I don’t think Randal should have been asked to share his victory even if the two of them had been close. However, they weren’t close. Randal had a much stronger record going into the finals. Most of his competitors favored him over Rebecca. And, despite making some errors in his final task, at least he was able to see enough of the “big picture” (Rebecca!) to recognize that a charity event should be about the charity.
I think Rebecca was a strong candidate (and would have wiped the floor with Tana, Jenn M, and maybe even Kelly). She just had the bad luck to compete in a season when there was a much stronger candidate.
You make some good points, and I don’t disagree with the details of what you’re saying. I think we just interpret the sum of it all differently. If I understand you correctly, you see Randall as making the best of a bad situation imposed upon him by the Donald. But I see Randall as blowing a perfect opportunity offered to him by the Donald to be the ultimate leader. To me, it doesn’t diminish my own success when my success edifies someone else. Interestingly, there is a similar dichotomy to this with respect to interpretations of the Prodigal Son story. I’ve heard people say that the father did a shitty thing by making such a fuss over the wayward son when he returned home, while the obedient son got nothing special. I’m of the opinion that the obedient son had lived a life of luxury with his father always available to him, and that it was right to celebrate his brother’s return. It was his own choice whether he would share the joy or hold a grudge. Likewise, Randall chose, in my view, the more selfish and detached option. If he wanted to think it over, he could have said so. But he instantly responded which, to me, is even worse: it means that the Ghengian philosophy is deeply entrenched in his worldview.
At least all this is very interesting, and caps off a great season overall. No matter whether you think Randall was had or Randall was a cad, it’s good when a TV show makes us think deeply about our philosophies.