3 ms·

This is empirically false. A recent look at 39 $1B+ companies founded in the last 10 years: 33% had an MBA founder, to say nothing of the MBAs that have played

by eroo 12y ago

This is empirically false. A recent look at 39 $1B+ companies founded in the last 10 years: 33% had an MBA founder, to say nothing of the MBAs that have played significant early-stage exec roles (e.g., Facebook's Sandberg, Evernote's Gullicksen)[0] Amazon also does not appear to be "anti-MBA."[1] A broader misunderstanding comes from the fact that MBAs are all a particular "type." Top MBA programs are going to have everything from engineers to Peace Core volunteers. Is there any reason to suspect comp. sci. majors who spent 3 years at [insert reputable tech, consulting, banking firm here] and then went to get an MBA are systematically worse for tech jobs than those who did not? [0] http://bostonvcblog.typepad.com/vc/2013/11/unicorns-and-mbas.html http://bostonvcblog.typepad.com/vc/2013/11/unicorns-and-mbas... [1] http://www.amazon.jobs/team/university-mba-graduate http://www.amazon.jobs/team/university-mba-graduate

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- ryandrake 12y ago
  You're the one making the wild claim that "MBAs are toxic to business". Let's see your evidence.
- eroo 12y ago
  [Edit] PLEASE DONT DELETE YOUR REPLY IF PEOPLE ARE GIVING THOUGHTFUL FOLLOW-UPS. That is a very mature sample given the short duration of the relevant time frame. Admittedly I'm ignorant about the specifics of several of these 39, but I recognize most as public, acquired for $1B+, or pretty clear "winners" (e.g., Uber). Do any in particular seem suspicious or are there examples you think are missing? I'm not arguing an ideological position, I'm genuinely interested in the "right" answer. The definition of "success" is nebulous, and data are limited, but what's available would suggest you're strongly overreaching. 2 more recent ~$1B ones that just came to mind: Wayfair and HubSpot, both of which are MBA founder teams. The latter is also a dual technical founding team: ee and cs undergrad majors.
- bduerst 12y ago
  > Someone1234 says: Are you sure you're measuring the right things? All that proves is that MBAs are able to convince other MBAs or investors to give their startups money. It doesn't prove an MBA's value in an existing company. So now MBAs are poor performers because you think they are only helping each other do well? Sounds like a case of confirmation bias. Edit: And now you've deleted it to hide your confirmation bias on HN. Bravo.
mbesto 12y ago
I met a woman who was doing the Sloan program at Wharton who's boss told her "get an MBA or you won't move up in the company". She then went on to explain that everyone higher than her was an MBA. To further the whole discussion - MBA's are typically very good at optimizing businesses at later stages. These typical results are usually just as anecdotal as the argument "MBAs are toxic". In other words, YMMV, and generally speaking MBA programs pick strong work candidates, but it doesn't universally mean they are all the best.

by eroo 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

ryandrake 12y ago
You're the one making the wild claim that "MBAs are toxic to business". Let's see your evidence.
eroo 12y ago
[Edit] PLEASE DONT DELETE YOUR REPLY IF PEOPLE ARE GIVING THOUGHTFUL FOLLOW-UPS. That is a very mature sample given the short duration of the relevant time frame. Admittedly I'm ignorant about the specifics of several of these 39, but I recognize most as public, acquired for $1B+, or pretty clear "winners" (e.g., Uber). Do any in particular seem suspicious or are there examples you think are missing? I'm not arguing an ideological position, I'm genuinely interested in the "right" answer. The definition of "success" is nebulous, and data are limited, but what's available would suggest you're strongly overreaching. 2 more recent ~$1B ones that just came to mind: Wayfair and HubSpot, both of which are MBA founder teams. The latter is also a dual technical founding team: ee and cs undergrad majors.
bduerst 12y ago
> Someone1234 says: Are you sure you're measuring the right things? All that proves is that MBAs are able to convince other MBAs or investors to give their startups money. It doesn't prove an MBA's value in an existing company. So now MBAs are poor performers because you think they are only helping each other do well? Sounds like a case of confirmation bias. Edit: And now you've deleted it to hide your confirmation bias on HN. Bravo.

mbesto 12y ago

I met a woman who was doing the Sloan program at Wharton who's boss told her "get an MBA or you won't move up in the company". She then went on to explain that everyone higher than her was an MBA. To further the whole discussion - MBA's are typically very good at optimizing businesses at later stages. These typical results are usually just as anecdotal as the argument "MBAs are toxic". In other words, YMMV, and generally speaking MBA programs pick strong work candidates, but it doesn't universally mean they are all the best.