"Product Manager", like "User Experience Designer" or "Software Architect" is one of those abstract, higher level roles that doesn't really exist on small teams

"Product Manager", like "User Experience Designer" or "Software Architect" is one of those abstract, higher level roles that doesn't really exist on small teams. I do think that these folks can add value in much larger organizations, but in my experience, the only good ones are the ones who would be useful on small teams. In short, a "software architect" who couldn't immediately transition to a highly productive role writing code almost certainly isn't a good software architect. A "user experience designer" who couldn't immediately sit down with a programmer and start creating a polished site almost certainly isn't a useful "UX Designer". And by could, I also mean would. The good designers and architects are kind of delighted to get a chance to get their hands into code again. It sounds like the problem with MBAs (based on this essay) is that they seek those higher level roles 1) where they don't exist, or 2) without the more hands-on background that seems to be a prerequisite for success at a more abstract level. I do sympathize with the people who object to the "black mark". A black mark is a conviction for embezzlement, not a degree honestly earned (albeit of potentially dubious value). But you know, filters are both a luxury and a necessity. Some people won't look at any resume that doesn't have a CS degree from a top school. If you're so deluged with candidates that you can afford to (and need to) do this, obviously you're in a position or real strength. Aside from my "black mark" objection, I think the rest of this essay is spot-on. The rejection is based more on a conversation than a rigid filter, he engages with the interested candidate a bit to see how they might fit.