5 ms·

Says the guy with an MBA.

by reledi 14y ago

Skibb 14y ago
Exactly, maybe they should've taught him to give good arguments for his opinions or something such. His article can be broke down to: "MBAs need to change bc they are already worthless! How? Don't ask me, I just feel stupid for paying 100k bucks for nothing"
tbatterii 14y ago
my thoughts exactly. the only folks who seem to value mbas are other mbas. i don't even think i can accept the defined success criteria outlined in the article (un-sustained long term growth) much less the premise that only mbas know how to achieve it.
- MisterBastahrd 14y ago
  Didn't some guy just kill himself a while back because he didn't have the training to so much as read a balance sheet and ran his company into the ground? While MBAs may not be the best entrepreneurs, they are more valuable in keeping large, mature organizations up and running than Joe Nerd and his series of weekend projects. Hell, that's the very purpose of an MBA.
  - tbatterii 14y ago
    it doesn't take an mba to read a balance sheet. a bachelors in accounting is enough to be a cpa. and you don't have to be a cpa to read a balance sheet. perhaps it takes an mba to manufacture a fake balance sheet that will pass wall street muster though. > they are more valuable in keeping large, mature organizations up and running than Joe Nerd and his series of weekend projects this is the same premise as the article. who says an organization has to be large to be successful?
    - wtvanhest 14y ago
      > this is the same premise as the article. who says an organization has to be large to be successful? The people who invested in it.
      - tbatterii 14y ago
        investors want a return on their investment. i believe the technical term would be ROI otherwise known as rate of return not the rate increase of the rate of return or ROI. an investor who demands constant growth in their rate of return on an investment is either irrationally optimistic or stupid.
        wtvanhest 14y ago
        There are a variety of terms describing how to measure the success of an investment. Return On Investment (ROI) is one of those. The most important measure is arguably NPV (Net Present Value) because it takes in to consideration the size of the amount of money you get back after adjusting for the required rate of return. As an extreme example, imagine if I gave you the option to get a 1000% on a $1 investment. But, the entire investment could only be $1, in otherwords, you couldn't make a $1,000 investment and get $10,000. The most you could make is $9. Now, imagine if I told you there was a 3% chance that you would loose 50% of your money, and a 12% chance that you would get just your money back and an 85% chance you would make 1,000%! On the face of it, it sounds like a good deal, you have a really strong possibility of making a 1,000% return and a really small possibility of losing some money. But, what if I told you that it would take you 10 hours to figure out whether my return estimate (1,000%) and probabilities, 3%, 12%, 85% were accurate? Would it be worth 10 hours to make $9? Obviously it wouldn't unless your current hourly wage were less than $1 an hour. That is one of the reasons VCs do not invest in businesses that don't have the possibility of becoming huge. There is really no reason for them to spend the time on figuring it out. It is also the reason that in order for a business to be "successful" the people who invest in it, must end up owning a part of a very large business. Small businesses can be successful for the individual entrepreneur, but they are not investable. Also, you don't become a CPA from just doing an accounting undergrad, you also have to have work experience in public accounting in most states. But, I do agree that you don't need an MBA to read a balance sheet. A few months of self study should allow you to understand the basics of financial statements. A few years of working with them will get you pretty good at analyzing them and may even give you the experience to construct them.
  - VLM 14y ago
    I was commenting on that very topic. Guess how I learned basic accounting better than approximately one startup-ish CEO? Playing "Railroad Tycoon" on a PC in the late 80s (90s?). And a couple other games, but mostly RRT. That much later led me to read Graham and Dodd and the more modern fundamental analysis guys, although analysis is useless in the current mostly speculative driven equities market. Anyway the point is you can learn the basics playing a computer game. Its pretty scary that a little gaming decades ago puts me ahead of at least the absolute bottom of the CEO barrel. It would be like discovering that a couple hours playing Doom and Quake put me ahead in tactical skills of at least one SEAL team member. The amazing part NOT being my minimal skills, but the amazing part is the bottom of the barrel of "famous major real world players" is so incredibly deep that my minimal skills none the less easily beat theirs. The other weirdness is I spent about $50 and a couple hours (well, maybe dozens... it was fun) playing a game and that boosted me into the low percentile of CEO skills. Apparently I would be well qualified to run an absolutely bottom of the barrel startup as CEO into the ground, and instead of spending $150K and thousands of hours to learn that, I just played a game for awhile. The financials and time investment must depress the guys who graduate at the bottom of their MBA classes knowing less than I know. That weirdness is an interesting aspect of tech/gaming/computers in that most people pay attention to the highest achievements but the effect on low end is also important and not discussed enough.

Says the guy with an MBA.

by reledi 14y ago

Says the guy with an MBA.

Skibb 14y ago

Exactly, maybe they should've taught him to give good arguments for his opinions or something such. His article can be broke down to: "MBAs need to change bc they are already worthless! How? Don't ask me, I just feel stupid for paying 100k bucks for nothing"

tbatterii 14y ago

my thoughts exactly. the only folks who seem to value mbas are other mbas. i don't even think i can accept the defined success criteria outlined in the article (un-sustained long term growth) much less the premise that only mbas know how to achieve it.

MisterBastahrd 14y ago
Didn't some guy just kill himself a while back because he didn't have the training to so much as read a balance sheet and ran his company into the ground? While MBAs may not be the best entrepreneurs, they are more valuable in keeping large, mature organizations up and running than Joe Nerd and his series of weekend projects. Hell, that's the very purpose of an MBA.
- tbatterii 14y ago
  it doesn't take an mba to read a balance sheet. a bachelors in accounting is enough to be a cpa. and you don't have to be a cpa to read a balance sheet. perhaps it takes an mba to manufacture a fake balance sheet that will pass wall street muster though. > they are more valuable in keeping large, mature organizations up and running than Joe Nerd and his series of weekend projects this is the same premise as the article. who says an organization has to be large to be successful?
  - wtvanhest 14y ago
    > this is the same premise as the article. who says an organization has to be large to be successful? The people who invested in it.
    - tbatterii 14y ago
      investors want a return on their investment. i believe the technical term would be ROI otherwise known as rate of return not the rate increase of the rate of return or ROI. an investor who demands constant growth in their rate of return on an investment is either irrationally optimistic or stupid.
      - wtvanhest 14y ago
        There are a variety of terms describing how to measure the success of an investment. Return On Investment (ROI) is one of those. The most important measure is arguably NPV (Net Present Value) because it takes in to consideration the size of the amount of money you get back after adjusting for the required rate of return. As an extreme example, imagine if I gave you the option to get a 1000% on a $1 investment. But, the entire investment could only be $1, in otherwords, you couldn't make a $1,000 investment and get $10,000. The most you could make is $9. Now, imagine if I told you there was a 3% chance that you would loose 50% of your money, and a 12% chance that you would get just your money back and an 85% chance you would make 1,000%! On the face of it, it sounds like a good deal, you have a really strong possibility of making a 1,000% return and a really small possibility of losing some money. But, what if I told you that it would take you 10 hours to figure out whether my return estimate (1,000%) and probabilities, 3%, 12%, 85% were accurate? Would it be worth 10 hours to make $9? Obviously it wouldn't unless your current hourly wage were less than $1 an hour. That is one of the reasons VCs do not invest in businesses that don't have the possibility of becoming huge. There is really no reason for them to spend the time on figuring it out. It is also the reason that in order for a business to be "successful" the people who invest in it, must end up owning a part of a very large business. Small businesses can be successful for the individual entrepreneur, but they are not investable. Also, you don't become a CPA from just doing an accounting undergrad, you also have to have work experience in public accounting in most states. But, I do agree that you don't need an MBA to read a balance sheet. A few months of self study should allow you to understand the basics of financial statements. A few years of working with them will get you pretty good at analyzing them and may even give you the experience to construct them.
- VLM 14y ago
  I was commenting on that very topic. Guess how I learned basic accounting better than approximately one startup-ish CEO? Playing "Railroad Tycoon" on a PC in the late 80s (90s?). And a couple other games, but mostly RRT. That much later led me to read Graham and Dodd and the more modern fundamental analysis guys, although analysis is useless in the current mostly speculative driven equities market. Anyway the point is you can learn the basics playing a computer game. Its pretty scary that a little gaming decades ago puts me ahead of at least the absolute bottom of the CEO barrel. It would be like discovering that a couple hours playing Doom and Quake put me ahead in tactical skills of at least one SEAL team member. The amazing part NOT being my minimal skills, but the amazing part is the bottom of the barrel of "famous major real world players" is so incredibly deep that my minimal skills none the less easily beat theirs. The other weirdness is I spent about $50 and a couple hours (well, maybe dozens... it was fun) playing a game and that boosted me into the low percentile of CEO skills. Apparently I would be well qualified to run an absolutely bottom of the barrel startup as CEO into the ground, and instead of spending $150K and thousands of hours to learn that, I just played a game for awhile. The financials and time investment must depress the guys who graduate at the bottom of their MBA classes knowing less than I know. That weirdness is an interesting aspect of tech/gaming/computers in that most people pay attention to the highest achievements but the effect on low end is also important and not discussed enough.