The author went through the trouble of saying he'd eliminate straw-man arguments at the beginning of the piece and then spent the rest of the piece rebuilding t

The author went through the trouble of saying he'd eliminate straw-man arguments at the beginning of the piece and then spent the rest of the piece rebuilding the straw man with gems like "MBA thinking" and "MBA's are entitled", "MBAs think they're special snowflakes". If you're hiring, particularly in a startup, you owe it to yourself and your company to carefully consider qualified applicants. Yes, hiring signals exist, but all signals are not equal. Placing too much negative value on a person achieving a Masters degree can easily turn out to be a mistake. I also don't buy the opportunity cost argument. Does the author examine every line of every resume to determine what the applicant could have been doing instead and gives the best score to the applicant who left the least on the ground? Or is this pedantic behavior executed exclusively on MBAs, because they deserve the stereotype? I question the value of yet another article like this. It's just amplifying the noise in the echo chamber. The author states he knows several MBAs who have worked at or founded successful startups. Why not write about that instead of rehashing the same, dull, unsupported claims?