I personally don't find the analysis relevant. The assumption is that after taking on massive debt to finance their MBA, the graduates have a few spare hundreds

I personally don't find the analysis relevant. The assumption is that after taking on massive debt to finance their MBA, the graduates have a few spare hundreds of thousands of dollars to acquire a business (the article is not about starting a business from scratch). I really doubt than anyone having the dollars to do that need this article, however it will mislead the rest. It is also worth noting that all the figures relating to the acquired business are purely hypothetical and not data driven. Moreover businesses having this level of predictability are usually not the most affordable. The thing is MBAs do not train people to be entrepreneurs, it trains prople to administrate a business already having positive cashflow and having access to some sort of leverage (debt, significant cash, etc...). Unless you are already in business and feel you need a MBA to complete your skillset and move from a 200 people company to a 2000 people one, a MBA should be done to work for / with a big firm. The only dichotomy is whether you buy this firm or not. The fact is rven in the case where you already own a company, it is still about managing a big firm. I'm not sure that trying to do otherwise is the smartest use of one's money. The article is not phony, but my reproach is that the discussion is of limited practical use. It's like asking : which former basketball players make more: sport consultants, or small clubs owners ? Then you click and find out that 1) what they call consultants are TV consultants paid by big firms, 2) the so called small clubs need to be based in Dubai. 3) it only applies to NBA players in the first place, exactly those who need free-internet advice the less.