TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

If MBAs are useless, we’re all in big trouble

30 pointsby jszlasaabout 12 years ago

15 comments

kfkabout 12 years ago
I am probably never going to do an MBA (probably because life in unpredictable), but, as a business guy with programming skills, I strongly advise the "tech guys" not to close doors on anybody. If they come with a suit and they look like they are going to drop a ton a BS on you, just listen and then ask them to prove themselves somehow. If they ask you money and they don't want to prove themselves first, then you should send them the high way.<p>And, I know HN is strongly skewed on consumer SAAS, but there is a world of companies with big money working on 10 to 20 years old software that would love to pay for stuff that works and allows them to save costs. Easiest way to get to this gold mine is actually sympathizing with the business people, not "enemyzing" them.
ckluisabout 12 years ago
MBA here.<p>I agree and I disagree. The MBA itself is pointless without considerable effort of the student to learn things related to startups.<p>MBAs teach you to be good middle to upper management in an organization with some structure. It teaches you how to navigate and mold an existing structure as needed for the course of business. It doesn't teach you how to build a company from scratch.<p>I would argue that a skilled business professional is useless for some startups and necessary for others. Want to tackle enterprise software? A few of those MBAs can provide insight and credibility.<p>Web guys are useless in a native world. Cocoa guys are useless in a Windows world. XAML guys are worthless in an Cocoa world. Right tool. Right job.
评论 #5625226 未加载
nnnnniabout 12 years ago
I've noticed that the radio and TV are full of commercials that say "Get your MBA at $school today and become a success tomorrow!"<p>It seems to me that whatever the MBA may have been worth at one point, it's now worth about the same thing as A+ or Network+ certification. This feels like a rerun of the early 2000s when the job market was flooded with people that have bootcamp certificates but no real knowledge/experience/drive.
jaibotabout 12 years ago
Anybody going to do a quantitative analysis on the impact of having an MBA on startup success? Because I'd hate for something to get in the way of all these anecdotes.
评论 #5625164 未加载
moominabout 12 years ago
TL;DR We're all in big trouble.
Skibbabout 12 years ago
ugh you beat me to it!<p>Truth is MBAs are inflated hullaballoo whose exorbitant price for offering semi useful drivel may have worked in the time of all-is-fine-and-dandy but in today's unstable economic world where lean is mean (in good sense) it's just anachronistic.
wheatiesabout 12 years ago
I hate to say it but what does anything an MBA teaches have to do with being a good leader? Leadership can't be taught, it has to be learned. Those business analysis skills are just that, business analysis. I think the largest problems revolving around the concept of getting an MBA is the sense that with it you should be in a leadership role.I'd love that knowledge but I would never make the assumption that having knowledge means I am entitled to having a management role.
评论 #5625577 未加载
michaelochurchabout 12 years ago
The hatred for "MBAs" has little to do with the degree itself.<p>========================<p>First, an aside.<p>Paul Graham was wrong about something. He wrote "Why Nerds Are Unpopular" (still a great essay: <a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html</a>). He was mostly right:<p><i>Being smart seems to make you unpopular.</i><p>Ok. Reading on...<p><i>Being smart doesn't make you an outcast in elementary school. Nor does it harm you in the real world. [...] But in a typical American secondary school, being smart is likely to make your life difficult.</i><p>Agree so far...<p><i>So if intelligence in itself is not a factor in popularity, why are smart kids so consistently unpopular? The answer, I think, is that they don't really want to be popular.<p>If someone had told me that at the time, I would have laughed at him. [...] Of course I wanted to be popular.<p>But in fact I didn't, not enough. There was something else I wanted more: to be smart. Not simply to do well in school, though that counted for something, but to design beautiful rockets, or to write well, or to understand how to program computers. In general, to make great things.</i><p>Holy shit! This is right on. Go nerds!<p><i>I wonder if anyone in the world works harder at anything than American school kids work at popularity. Navy SEALs and neurosurgery residents seem slackers by comparison. [...] An American teenager may work at being popular every waking hour, 365 days a year.<p>[T]eenagers are always on duty as conformists.</i><p>Wow. This is some deep insight. Always on-duty as conformists... what does that seem like? (Hint: corporate work.) I'll get hack to that.<p><i>Nerds don't realize this. They don't realize that it takes work to be popular. [...] Likewise, popular isn't just something you are or you aren't, but something you make yourself.</i><p>So far, Paul Graham is batting 1.000.<p><i>In a typical American school, standards for coolness are so high (or at least, so specific) that you don't have to be especially awkward to look awkward by comparison.</i><p>Yes, this is true. I was somewhere around the 30th percentile of my HS pecking order and completely fine with that. I wasn't "cool" bit I wasn't unpopular, people respected me, I never got beat up. But if you wanted to be 98th, you really had to put a lot into it.<p><i>Few smart kids can spare the attention that popularity requires. [...] [T]hat's why smart people's lives are worst between, say, the ages of eleven and seventeen.</i><p>Yes. Go on...<p><i>Life at that age revolves far more around popularity than before or after.</i><p>This is where Paul Graham is wrong. Yes, high school is horrible for the least popular couple percent. For most of us, even the nerds, it was fine. You don't lose your income if you're at the 30th percentile of the pecking order, and you have other things to focus on. You have things (e.g. college) to look forward to.<p>The Work World is more like high school than college or academia. Actually, it's worse than high school. In corporate Work, the popular kids are actually evil (in HS, most of them weren't; perhaps selfish and immature but not <i>evil</i>) and you lose huge amounts of <i>money</i> when they fuck you over. Also, there is <i>no</i> external definition of merit. In HS, you can work hard and get good grades and that gives you a signal that even though you're not popular, you're doing well in society's eyes. There is <i>nothing</i> like that at Work. Your grades (performance reviews, job titles) are given by the popular kids who have no desire to be fair and who will be as <i>unfair</i> as they can get away with if it helps them get ahead.<p><i>Adults don't normally persecute nerds.</i><p>Well, this is just not the case. Not in VC-istan, not in 99% of jobs even at "tech companies". The popular kids rule with an iron fist. They dress it up with a pseudo-meritocracy and "performance" rhetoric and credibility metrics and job titles, but it's just high school popularity, this time played for keeps. And yes, if you're one of those nerds who puts his head down and tries to be as good as possible at his job (instead of playing politics) you will be attacked in most environments. Why? Because an <i>actual</i> high-performer scares the shit out of the popular kids.<p><i>[Y]ou can create an enemy if there isn't a real one. By singling out and persecuting a nerd, a group of kids from higher in the hierarchy create bonds between themselves. Attacking an outsider makes them all insiders.</i><p>This is exactly how corporate Work works.<p><i>It's important to realize that, no, the adults don't know what the kids are doing to one another. They know, in the abstract, that kids are monstrously cruel to one another [...]<p>Public school teachers are in much the same position as prison wardens. Wardens' main concern is to keep the prisoners on the premises. [...] Beyond that, they want to have as little to do with the prisoners as possible, so they leave them to create whatever social organization they want. From what I've read, the society that the prisoners create is warped, savage, and pervasive, and it is no fun to be at the bottom of it.</i><p>Office politics, right there. Managers (like HS teachers) are powerless to prevent it, because the information they get is filtered through the most intimidating/extortive subset of the people below them (who silence everyone else and become the real authority on "performance").<p><i>The inhabitants of all those worlds [e.g. high school] are trapped in little bubbles where nothing they do can have more than a local effect. Naturally these societies degenerate into savagery. They have no function for their form to follow.</i><p>Great insight. I agree. I disagree that Work is different for the vast majority of people. How do you get promotions? Or venture funding? Or just not fired when a "low-performer" witch hunt happens? Or get real projects where there's actual high-impact work available? Oh, right. <i>Popularity</i>.<p><i>Another problem, and possibly an even worse one, was that we never had anything real to work on. Humans like to work; in most of the world, your work is your identity. And all the work we did was pointless, or seemed so at the time.</i><p>99% of office jobs. High school work isn't "pointless". It just has no impact on the outside world because <i>it's evaluative</i> by design. That's how bottom-rung corporate work is, too. They aren't giving you work because it's important. They give you undesirable and unimportant stuff, for a dues-paying period of a few years, in order to evaluate you for eligibility for real work. Getting out is based on popularity, not merit.<p>It's worse at Work because, in high school, real effort is made to make the work at least marginally engaging and <i>educating</i>. At Work, no one cares. The Work is <i>supposed</i> to be dogshit. It wouldn't be a test if you were learning something from it.<p><i>Nerds aren't losers. They're just playing a different game, and a game much closer to the one played in the real world.</i><p>This is where Paul Graham gets it wrong. The high school popularity game is the more "real world"-like game, not the nerd be-smart-and-do-great-work game. Who is going to get the boss job, the well-connected idiot or the hard worker? The former, even in "tech". Your boss gets to tell you what to do because he has more credibility (<i>popularity</i>) with the organization.<p>========================<p>Okay. I'm not dissecting this to pick on Paul Graham. His essays are insightful, inspiring, and extremely well-written. He gets a lot more right than he gets wrong. He also wrote this 10 years ago, before the Social Media Douchepocalypse was even on the radar. I just think that he had a very unusual set of experiences that led him to conclusions closer to how the world should be than what it is actually like. Now, I'm just as biased. Remember that I'm the Hacker News anti-Christ. I think of Paul Graham as someone very like me with a radically <i>opposite</i> set of experiences. In his world, brilliant hard-working people are rewarded. In my world, base about 20 years later after "the cool kids" had set up permanent camp in something (Silicon Valley) that was originally by us and <i>for</i> us, such high-quality people are exploited, and often treated very badly by people who see them as a threat. He and I are both right, over what we've seen. We just have small data sets. Unfortunately, and I hate that this is true, I think my conclusions are more representative of what people face today.<p>What could this have to do with MBAs? It's a euphemism for "the popular kids". I know some great people with MBAs, but when disparage "MBAs" as a class, we're talking about the well-connected talentless smiling idiots who are competing with us for venture capital, managerial position and favor, and visibility. Even on our fucking territory (software and technology) they are <i>fucking demolishing us</i>. It's not even a fight. We're just getting trampled because we don't know <i>how</i> to fight.<p>When we gripe about MBAs, we're not talking about something that has anything to do with the coursework. It's the attitude of entitlement that comes with having a globally visible and permanent "I'm One of the Cool Kids" credential, and the connections that come with it. You have to be smart to get into a good PhD or JD or MD program. To get into a top MBA program? Family connections or work experience (read: high-status jobs, meaning popularity) will suffice. It's not what people learn in MBA programs that we have a problem with. We just don't like these fucking invaders. And we shouldn't like them. Technology is <i>our fucking turf</i>, fuckers. Get off our territory or I, for one, am ready to attack.
评论 #5625397 未加载
评论 #5625501 未加载
评论 #5626006 未加载
relediabout 12 years ago
Says the guy with an MBA.
评论 #5625084 未加载
评论 #5625563 未加载
Major_Groovesabout 12 years ago
I wrote a related post a while ago to answer to anyone who says MBAs can't start companies: <a href="http://wannabevc.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/mba-startups/" rel="nofollow">http://wannabevc.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/mba-startups/</a>
评论 #5624942 未加载
FelixPabout 12 years ago
I think non-business people frequently make the error of lumping all MBAs together; practically speaking, there's a decent gap between the top three programs (HBS, Stanford GSB, &#38; Wharton), the rest of the top 10-15 (Kellogg, Berkeley, Sloan, Booth, UCLA, etc.), and there's a pretty massive gap from there to everyone else.<p>I think folks often make the assumption that MBA program quality follows a similar distribution to undergraduate education, but unfortunately there's a much steeper falloff from the top few schools.
ArekDymalskiabout 12 years ago
What I don't like about this article is that it suggests that you are forced to choose: either MBA or "new methods of innovation, like the lean startup, accelerators, hackathons and growth hacking". First it seems that the author doesn't fully understand the quoted buzzwords. But that's not the point. The important thing is that Lean Startup is a methodology that can be supplemented by knowledge nad (hopefully) skills that you get during MBA studies. Who said that these things are mutually exclusive?
forgotAgainabout 12 years ago
The article is a very good demonstration of why MBA's are generally considered useless. Lots of buzzwords with little seasoning.
16sabout 12 years ago
In my experience, it all depends on the individual. It doesn't matter what degree they have. If they have work ethic and ambition and they love what they do, you absolutely want them on your team.
评论 #5625809 未加载
graycatabout 12 years ago
I was a professor in one of the better MBA programs.<p>(1) Students. The students were good, both when they entered and when they left.<p>(2) Courses.<p>Accounting. Except for students who already knew accounting, the accounting courses likely helped all the students who wanted to be in business. But the undergraduate accounting courses did, also.<p>Likely if wanted to sit for the CPA exam, then would need more study. My undergraduate school had nothing on business, but if a student wanted a CPA then there was a nice woman in town who gave tutoring, had the study materials, etc. One student worked with this woman in the summer after her Bachelor's, took the CPA exam, and made the highest score in the state. So, if want to sit for the CPA exam, then just do the studying and take the exam, whether have had a business school course in accounting or not. Qualification: That CPA example was from over 10 years ago; the CPA exams may have changed a lot since then. If want a CPA, then should look carefully into the CPA exam process.<p>Statistics. There was a course in statistics, but I was not impressed with it. The students didn't learn enough about statistics to be anything but dangerous if they tried to use the material on anything important. And the course didn't do much for the student's 'skills' at using statistics software packages. Statistics is taught better, of course, in a department of statistics but commonly also in good departments of sociology, psychology, economics, and agriculture.<p>There is a lot that can be done with statistics, and to some extent now with 'big data' and more in statistical software, more is being done. But the MBA statistics course was only a weak start for powerful uses of statistics in the future.<p>Optimization. There was a course in optimization, mostly linear programming. Occasionally in a real business that is powerful, valuable material.<p>The intention of the accreditation system to ask for such a course was to jump start more 'quantitative' management, i.e., 'management science', via linear programming and optimization more generally. And there are some applications, e.g., there is a chemical engineering professor at Princeton who has apparently some good uses for optimization in the petroleum refining in Houston. And optimization for airline plane and crew scheduling is a solid application.<p>Linear programing and other parts of optimization long were the basis of a major fraction of the Nobel prizes in economics; the connection with any real economy or business was mostly in the eye of the beholder.<p>Mostly mathematical optimization still has yet to catch on strongly more generally. Maybe in the future with more data, software, and computer automation optimization will have a new day. So the teaching of optimization was something of a long shot bet on the distant future.<p>Having a fast algorithm that shows that P = NP might get optimization going again in business. For problems where would want such an algorithm, commonly can do well now, but the work is mostly one problem at a time, slow, expensive, and risky, and a fast algorithm that shows that P = NP might do wonders for 'ease of use'.<p>Also if optimization becomes more important, then the work will likely be done by specialists from departments of applied math, civil engineering, etc. in specialized groups or outside companies. So, for an MBA, optimization would be mostly only to make them an 'educated consumer' rather than an actual practitioner.<p>Finance. The finance course would be good for someone who was still struggling with compound interest but would not help much in serious work at, say, the CFO's office of a major company, Goldman Sachs, or a hedge fund. The course did mention the Sharpe capital asset pricing model. Of course the linear algebra and statistics needed for the Markowitz model would be a struggle! For stochastic differential equations for 'continuous time finance', that is not very popular in the US, in business schools or anywhere. There are a few professors -- Karatzas at Columbia, Avellaneda at Courant, Cinlar at Princeton, Shreve at CMU, Merton at MIT, a few more.<p>Labor Law. The course in labor law might be good for someone who never heard anything about such issues, but the professor teaching the course had never negotiated an actual labor agreement. One of my students had negotiated labor agreements for his family's business and had bad things to say about the labor law course.<p>Organizational Behavior. Some guys with backgrounds in psychology and sociology were teaching the organizational behavior course. My brother, Ph.D. in political science, also taught such a course in a program of public administration. One of the ideas is 'goal subordination' where a middle manager is motivated to act in ways that give him a short term advantage at a long term cost to the business. Not very deep material but maybe worthwhile.<p>Generally college and university courses can be good if they are intellectually challenging and, thus, help the student learn how to work hard and think, work, and write carefully, but the business school courses were not very challenging in that sense.<p>The business school was respected in a radius of 200 miles or so: Significant businesses, some nationally known, would come and recruit.<p>Likely some of the students met other students who would likely be useful to them in the future.<p>The business school full professors, chairs, and deans really didn't have any very clear idea just what the business school should teach, especially at the MBA level. The most important influence was to try, although not very seriously, to do 'research' as in physics envy. Contact with actual businesses was discouraged. E.g., there were plenty of talks by graduate students and professors with solutions looking for problems but essentially no talks by business people with problems looking for solutions. E.g., the idea of having the business school be a 'research-teaching' hospital for real business problems was not attempted. The school didn't want to be clinical as in medicine or even practical as in engineering but, instead, pure white as driven snow theoretical as in mathematical physics.<p>Generally the 'research' was too far from business to be at all promising for any practical impact in the foreseeable future. The best research I saw there was by a professor taking a novel approach to attacking essentially the question of P versus NP, but that work really belonged in, say, a theoretical computer science department or a math department.<p>Business schools struggle: If they just go for physics envy, then they are mostly watered down versions of social science. Indeed, long the 'great leader' architects of business education believed that business school should be 'applied social science'. That's asking a bit much of social science!<p>If business school gets really close to business, then it becomes much like learning, say, the grocery business by starting as an apprentice in the produce department -- students shouldn't have to pay tuition for that.<p>In effect some of what is needed is for some professors to look at the world of business, get a good 'organization' or 'taxonomy' of its parts and pieces, study those to identify where might find some powerful, fundamental principles, and then do research on those principles. That is, the effort would be to look at business and 'formulate' characterizations and useful, powerful theories. So, that would be trying to make something clear and precise out of business that rarely looks either clear or precise.<p>In biology, such work was long just 'descriptive' but eventually some very interesting science. In physics, too: The motions of the planets were fairly easy for apparently nearly any civilization to observe, and there were efforts to explain the motions for hundreds of years before (dates from Wikipedia) Copernicus (1473 - 1543), Tycho Brahe (1546 - 1601), Galileo (1564 - 1642), Kepler (1571 - 1630), and finally Newton (1642 - 1727) got a good, really profound, solution. Such work is not easy to do.<p>For students, the business schools at Harvard and Stanford seem to be highly respected in some areas, e.g., investment banking, parts of management consulting, venture capital, and private equity. It may be that an MBA from one of those schools would do enough to 'open doors' and 'make connections' that the effort would be worthwhile for the student. Still I question if much solid material was learned in the courses.<p>One way to look at business school is as an 'effort' to make progress against the apparently messy world of business. Yes, it might be nice if business school taught enough to really understand business quite comprehensively and make getting wealthy routine. But it turns out that nearly any advantage, even one that is seemingly small, could, at some point in a business career, result in some large gains.