I think Rubystreak makes some good points about how we’re just not seeing that much of the men’s problems because they’re winning. But I do think that the men’s team is much stronger overall. More of the men seem to be basically competent people with some notable flaws. Most of the women seem to be utterly incompetent. Or even if they do have some areas of expertise, they’re willing to let interpersonal problems overshadow other considerations. I checked out Stacy’s bio on the official site. Her credentials indicate that she’ competent, but her personality problems make her seem like a total idiot.
I’ll admit it wasn’t as reckless as Pam’s comment. (Pamazon, love that.) It was just illuminating to see how fast and loose Chris can play it when he feels things are all under control. That kind of edgy humor can turn around and bite a guy on the ass if he gets too relaxed. Let’s just say he strikes me as the kind of guy whose mouth could get him in trouble. A more salt-of-the-earth type Bradford.
I have to agree with the observation that the women’s group seems overly weighted with dysfunctional people in terms of the ability to execute a strategy.
How you would select for this or not select for this I don’t know.
It’s the little crap that keeps tripping the ladies up like the printer cost screwup or the nervous “in your face” service at the restaurant. If each of those small items had been fixed they might well have won the contests.
I’ll also reiterate my observation that the women are (as a group) are quite intelligent individually but (IMO) mostly selected for eye candy appeal and “personality”, not competence. They are mainly a group of designer pretty ladies who are used to being deferred to, and working together is difficult if each one is used to being the the queen bee.
To me, the men are doing better because they just seem to keep things simpler. Or maybe it seems like they keep it simpler because they are better organized and more cohesive. It seems to me that the key to doing the tasks is to try and do something that is simple, but do ti really well, as opposed to maybe something flashier and better ni concept, but with far more potential to screw up or be disorganized.
The problem with that theory is that it lead to a few firings in the first season. Trump seems to respect more going for the big and coming up short than going for the modest and doing it. I guarentee that if the men lost last week the guy who decided to shoot for a million dollars wouldn’t have gotten the axe. Instead even in losing he would have shot up in Trump’s ratings because he did try for something really big.
Of course, thinking big doesn’t help if you really are so incompetant that it shows through anyway.
I think one thing that is escaping the attention of most contestants on the show is that being in the board room is not necessarily bad. In fact, it can give you much coveted face-time with Donald. It is as much an opportunity to shine as to falter. These people are basing strategy around avoiding the board room, and that’s a mistake. Donald isn’t just going eeney-meeny-miney-moe and firing whoever gets the last syllable. It’s true that of the people who go in there, one is going home, but if you go in there and impress him, it won’t be you. It’s almost like people are thinking, “Okay, if I can just get by this week, maybe I can fool Mr. Trump next week.”
I didn’t see the first season, so I can’t say. Certainly if you go big and pull it off then you are money. But I think you can be very impressive and still keep it simple.
Maybe so, maybe not. I bet Bradford thought he would shoot up in Trump’s ratings for the grand gesture of waiving his immunity, but Trump just thought he was a bravado moron. There’s an even chance Trump would have thought Andy’s idea was juvenile, facile, and ridiculous, though he might have fired the PM for going along with it before he fired Andy for coming up with it.
That’s the thing about Trump-- I think he fires people more for being innately stupid, arrogant, annoying, crazy, weird, or recklessly impulsive rather than for their actual performance on this particular task. Based on that, I think Jen C. would have been fired this week even if she had brought Sandy into the boardroom with her. Sandy did the job Jen told her to do, but more than that, Jen is a pain in the ass, obnoxious bitch. Hey, that’s enough reason for me too.
What reaction do people think Trump would have had to the “old Jewish bats” comment if Stacy had brought it up? Would he have been offended? Would it have bothered him, Carolyn, or Bill as much as Pamazon’s comment about the kid’s haircut? Just wondering. If I were Stacy (hell, if I were me), I’d have mentioned that little slur, just because it pissed me off so much.
People keep saying that; but I don’t see it. They all look rather average to merely attractive at best. Certainly none of them are Catherine Zeta-Jones caliber.
In the workaday world most of these ladies (little Stacy excluded) woud be considered at least top 5% attractive. Maybe not movie queen pretty, but with their attractive figures and faces, and the designer clothes they all seem to have suitcases full of, they would be more attractive than the large majority of their female cohorts.
IMO it’s slap you in the face obvious, that these women are used to being dererred to and rely to a large extent on being charming. The vibe is unmistakable, it surrounds them like a force field. It’s just the way life is for attractive people (both men and women). Seeing them flail around in these tasks is evidence of just how shallow their real world problem problem solving skills are when this force field is removed by being part of crowd of attractive people who do not defer to you or take care of you.
I don’t think Stacey J is qualified at all in terms of the work experience she listed. If she’s 26 there’s a very, very high likelihood she went straight from undergrad to lawschool (since it takes 3 years and people here usually graduate at 23) which means she’s listing her summer jobs as real jobs. No offense, I’m a lawstudent myself, but I would have a hard time considering my 1L summer externship (usually you only get externships your first year unless you have mega-connections) real work experience. Hell, I actually did some real stuff my 2L summer but it’s not like really working at a firm anyway.
I think she got on b/c Brooklyn is George’s alma mater, AFAIK.
I don’t agree with your assessment, anu-la. There are perfectly plausible explanations of why a 26-year-old could have such a resume.
Assume Stacy’s birthday is in November. She would have gone to college at 17 and graduated at 21. That means that if she went straight to law school, she would have gotten out at 24, giving her 2 years of post-law school work experience. And that’s if everything went according to a standard timetable. She could well have skipped a grade and/or taken a lot of AP classes, allowing her to cut a year off of her college time. I could see her easily having 3 or more years of real-world experience.
Although that’s possible a quick google search reveals that she only just passed the New York bar in 2004 and most people sit for it right after lawschool. I mean, I guess she could have just failed it for three years straight OR spent time passing the bar in several surrounding states but that makes me think that she’s either really stupid or has nothing better to do. I actually graduated school a year early through AP’s at age 21. Had I gone straight through I would only still have 2 years of work experience by age 26 not to mention the time delays of passing the bar and I highly doubt that in those two years I would have managed to procure legal positions at Sotheby’s, the Metropolitan Museum of Art AND a “top law firm.” Methinks someone is listing their summer jobs (externships).
anu–Thanks for doing the research. I reviewed Stacy’s bio on the official site, and see that you obviously picked up on something that I missed–it says she “worked in the legal departments” of those prestigious institutions, not that she worked for them as a lawyer. Big difference. I’ve worked for some of the top NYC law firms, myself. As a temp legal assistant. :rolleyes:
Last year, the men’s team was saddled with a handful of goofballs. They kept losing, the goofballs kept getting fired.
Eventually, a core group of talented men were left who then kept winning, while the ladies kept unravelling (thank-you, Omarosa).
And so, let’s see if two or three more women are cut, leaving a core group that finally gets its act together, then picks up the best two men in a re-shuffle, and starts winning.
We’ll see if the men’s team will unravel.
Who will freak out in the men’s team?
John? (Nobody eats all day!! Hypoglycemia is a made-up thing!)
Andy? (We’ll get a free million dollars in 12 hours!)
Chris? (Pretend you like the customers though they disgust you! It’s funny!)
Peace.
