or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Kelly on "The Apprentice"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kelly on "The Apprentice" - Page 2

post #16 of 37
Carolyn was surprised we notice things that others don't. We notice things either because we are weird or because we are more knowledgeable.
post #17 of 37
Perhaps, those contestants on Apprantice do not really care about styling as much as we do. Their main goal is to win. It's their marketing skill and personality win not what they are wearing I belive. If a person carries excellent kama, the person does not need to dress well to command repect. Everyone will follow that person naturally.
post #18 of 37
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I would have been happy had someone just tightened their tie against their shirt collar instead of leaving a half inch gap. Clearly I'm in the minority, but I liked both Raj and Jen. The next Apprentice looks to be interesting. It's set up to cheer for the high school grads but since I've got a couple of college degrees that might be self-defeating...  
I could not agree more...sloppy, slipping tie knots were a chronic problem this year with the men...John in particular-he probably wore the best suits, shirts and ties amongst the male contestants, but tied huge Windsor knots that he just couldn't keep tied under spread collars. On the Boardroom where he was fired, it was slipping at least three full inches under the top button.  He did keep it together last night though; that pocket silk he sported really made a great outfit spectacular, and I think he switched to a half-Windsor (which seemed to stay tied).
post #19 of 37
Quote:
koji
that would be cool - they would roll in about 10 am, gossip and smoke for a few hours, have a 3 hour lunch with wine, pop out to screw the girlfriend, work a little, go home to spend some time with the family and have a 3 course dinner, no stupid assignments, everybody would look great and eat great and smoke a lot, and somehow they would still end up with a relativly healthy economy and less heart desease.[/quote] Sign me up.
post #20 of 37
Well, here's my $0.02 on the whole thing. Kelly clearly was the front runner and the favorite. No surprise to anyone that he emerged victorious. He won in the end because he was smart enough to make the effort to continually step up and lead. Nothing he did actually convinced me that he was a good leader, however. The only way he was going to lose (and Jen should have realized this) was if he really screwed up the final assignment BIG TIME. Jen clearly was the more intelligent of the two candidates. Although she was NOT at the top of her class at Harvard Law School (I was there the same time she was) and she ended up at what can at best be described as a second tier law firm. Not an impressive career trajectory at all. The guy Trump fired in like the second episode, Brad, probably was the best true leader in the bunch. Overall conclusion: The real best and the brightest do NOT try to get on the Apprentice. They are too busy doing other more important and valuable things with their lives. As for style, I'll pick Jen over Kelly any day.
post #21 of 37
Quote:
Jen clearly was the more intelligent of the two candidates. Although she was NOT at the top of her class at Harvard Law School (I was there the same time she was) and she ended up at what can at best be described as a second tier law firm. Not an impressive career trajectory at all.
Wasn't she at Brobeck? At least Trump gave her the dignity of directly telling her "you're fired" rather than just closing up the shop one day . . . .
post #22 of 37
Brobeck and then Clifford Chance after Brobeck closed up. Interesting how working for the "world's biggest law firm" was made to sound like an accomplishment. I wouldn't with a job at CF on anybody.
post #23 of 37
Montecristo, did Jen even finish cum laude?
post #24 of 37
Quote:
Brobeck and then Clifford Chance after Brobeck closed up.  Interesting how working for the "world's biggest law firm" was made to sound like an accomplishment.  I wouldn't with a job at CF on anybody.
What's so bad about Clifford Chance?  I can't imagine that they would be any better or any worse than any NY-based firm.
post #25 of 37
I would not call Brobeck "at best a second tier law firm." True, they were horribly managed in hindsight, but back in the day they had their pick of the top graduates of the nation's top law schools. I know several people who chose Brobeck over firms like Skadden, Latham, & Williams & Connolly.
post #26 of 37
Skadden, Latham, etc. are second tier firms. First tier (New York) is Cravath, Davis Polk, Sullivan & Cromwell, etc. Boston Ropes and Gray, Hale and Dorr. Etc. I don't know if Jen finished cum laude, but I suspect that if she had (maybe 20-30% of each graduating class gets cum laude) she would have said something about it. I do know that she doesn't know how to pronounce "laude", which I found disturbing.
post #27 of 37
My wife found it strange that Jen wouldn't mention Harvard honors or journal work or anything. I think that is evidence that she graduated without honors. Clifford Chance is definitely not a first tier firm. Second tier at best. Brobeck I think was probably a "first tier" firm -- meaning that it was hot and a lot of good recruits went there over even places like MoFo -- back in the day. But Clifford Chance is not that impressive. Between Skadden and CF, Skadden is much, much better. I think Harvard sends maybe 1 or 2 people to CF each year at most.
post #28 of 37
In my opinion, the "name" value of a law firm is overrated.  It affects your future lateral mobility, but only to a certain extent.  (Sure, you won't be able to go from Billy Joe Thibodeaux and Associates to Cravath, but would you really want to?)  And as for the work, it's not like attorneys at Clifford Chance are doing late-night commercials.
post #29 of 37
Quote:
Skadden, Latham, etc. are second tier firms. First tier (New York) is Cravath, Davis Polk, Sullivan & Cromwell, etc. Boston Ropes and Gray, Hale and Dorr. Etc.
I don't want to get into a lame argument about firm prestige, especially on a style board, but on a national level Williams & Connolly & Latham & Watkins are more prestigious than Ropes, Hale, and probably Davis Polk.   As for Clifford Chance, I believe most of its US offices were obtained through its merger with Rogers & Wells, which was a third-tier firm at best.
post #30 of 37
I think Latham is definitely a power-house, whereas Ropes and Hale are by virtue of being in Boston less prestigious -- though Ropes is the firm of Archie Cox and a number of other Harvard professors. Williams & Connelly is simply a first-class firm, definitely top tier. Without question. Nobody said Williams was second tier.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Kelly on "The Apprentice"