Lazy reporting. The logic underpinning this article is flimsy at best. He is using the following to infer that fewer MBA's are going to SF: About 24% of MBA g

Lazy reporting. The logic underpinning this article is flimsy at best. He is using the following to infer that fewer MBA's are going to SF: About 24% of MBA graduates in the class of 2014 headed to tech jobs, down from 32% in 2013 and equal with the proportion back in 2012. Of course, those profiteering graduates are returning right back to where they belong in finance and consumer products, which each saw notable upticks in employment. There are several things that are wrong with this. First, he is only looking at Stanford GSB and assuming because it is in the Bay area that it is a reliable representation of MBA's everywhere, because surely it's proximity to SV means it must graduate more students who are likely to be employed there than elsewhere. But Haas is in the Bay area too. He's also assuming that students who graduated in years past aren't now moving to SV in increased numbers which, if true, could more than offset a decline in graduating students. However the most glaring hole in the logic is that "tech jobs" = San Francisco. As a fairly recent MBA grad myself, I can tell you that most of the people in my class who went into tech did not go to SV. Most went to places like Intel, Amazon, and Microsoft, none of which are based in California, let alone SV. If you don't have a firm understanding of a topic, why write about the topic? It just makes the author sound stupid.