Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

poetsandquants.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 81 posts

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#11

Post by ronilan »

joshu wrote: post #3
GuiA wrote: post #2

Stanford MBAs in tech are fucking weird. I worked with a few, and had one for a CEO for 2 years. The gist of it is that they all sucked at tech but thought they didn't (trying to manage engineering teams in ridiculous micromanagy self important ways), were all very self centered, and all came from very wealthy families, being able to raise a few hundred thousands from "friends and family" (!?) and spending 4 day week…

as an angel investor, mba founders is a big warning sign. so there's that.

Yah bookmark it. Always beware of those who have acquired some knowledge and the credentials for such. So that's this.

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#13

Post by joshu »

ronilan wrote: post #11
joshu wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as an angel investor, mba founders is a big warning sign. so there's that.

Yah bookmark it. Always beware of those who have acquired some knowledge and the credentials for such. So that's this.

there are occasional exceptions, but it's a been a good first approximation for me.

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#14

Post by yen223 »

7Figures2Commas wrote: post #8
Animats wrote: post #5

Away from tech, back into finance. It's not like they're going into manufacturing or something useful. "Finance was able to reclaim its No. 1 position at Stanford because of some extraordinary pay packages it dangled in front of the newly minted MBAs. Graduates who accepted jobs in private equity—12% of the entire class—pulled down median base starting salaries of $170,000, 36% higher than the $125,000 median base fo…

Yeah, it's not like those useless folks on Wall Street have ever helped manufacturers or tech companies. Oh wait[1][2]. [1] http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/progress/titan/ [2] http://fortune.com/2014/10/08/wellington-management-gets-int...

Help me out here, because I have a very tough time imagining a world where society is worse off because financial companies didn't exist. Is it really the case that if Goldman Sachs didn't exist, Titan International somehow can't exist either?

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#15

Post by dqdo »

easytiger wrote: post #10
gaze wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this is a real thing? It's not just me turned off by the strangely premeditated handshakes?

MBA courses are now being promoted in Europe and many people see it as a cancer

MBA stands for "more bad advice". The current MBA curriculum is mainly based on knowledge that we know in the 1980s. Most of the advance science and management processes that we have developed since then are not in the curriculum. So basically the MBA students are unfortunately learning outdated knowledge - half of which is wrong.

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#16

Post by capkutay »

GuiA wrote: post #2

Stanford MBAs in tech are fucking weird. I worked with a few, and had one for a CEO for 2 years. The gist of it is that they all sucked at tech but thought they didn't (trying to manage engineering teams in ridiculous micromanagy self important ways), were all very self centered, and all came from very wealthy families, being able to raise a few hundred thousands from "friends and family" (!?) and spending 4 day week…

"they all sucked at tech but thought they didn't"

Gah...these are the worst people!

The worst is one they spew out all their personal assumptions as though its the divine word that all must obey and follow.

People who really know tech share the same trait; they listen and learn. Every engineer knows that learning new things is part of overcoming challenges.

When someone acts like they know it all, that's usually a good indicator that they don't know shit.

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#17

Post by [deleted] »

GuiA wrote: post #2

Stanford MBAs in tech are fucking weird. I worked with a few, and had one for a CEO for 2 years. The gist of it is that they all sucked at tech but thought they didn't (trying to manage engineering teams in ridiculous micromanagy self important ways), were all very self centered, and all came from very wealthy families, being able to raise a few hundred thousands from "friends and family" (!?) and spending 4 day week…

[deleted]

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#18

Post by Meekro »

yen223 wrote: post #14
7Figures2Commas wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's not like those useless folks on Wall Street have ever helped manufacturers or tech companies. Oh wait[1][2]. [1] http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/progress/titan/ [2] http://fortune.com/2014/10/08/wellington-management-gets-int...

Help me out here, because I have a very tough time imagining a world where society is worse off because financial companies didn't exist. Is it really the case that if Goldman Sachs didn't exist, Titan International somehow can't exist either?

Companies don't exist to improve society, but to provide something of value to their customers in exchange for money. If society benefits along the way, that's a happy coincidence.

A plumber will fix your leaky sink, and that benefits you personally -- whether it benefits society or not is really beside the point. Similarly, investment firms and hedge funds will benefit their clients by investing their money and (hopefully) getting them a good return.

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#19

Post by 3beard »

pedalpete wrote: post #4
GuiA wrote: post #2

Stanford MBAs in tech are fucking weird. I worked with a few, and had one for a CEO for 2 years. The gist of it is that they all sucked at tech but thought they didn't (trying to manage engineering teams in ridiculous micromanagy self important ways), were all very self centered, and all came from very wealthy families, being able to raise a few hundred thousands from "friends and family" (!?) and spending 4 day week…

I had the same reaction initially, basically thinking 'good riddance', but then stopped for a second and realized they are talking about tech, not start-ups. I have a lot (too many, more than I ever thought I'd have) friends who are MBAs, and their is a place for them in larger technology companies, they just shouldn't be involved in developing breakthrough products. They are taught to manage big business and eke eff…

Don't forget that only ~1% of startups develop breakthrough products, because only ~1% of startups break through.

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#20

Post by aburan28 »

Meekro wrote: post #18
yen223 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Help me out here, because I have a very tough time imagining a world where society is worse off because financial companies didn't exist. Is it really the case that if Goldman Sachs didn't exist, Titan International somehow can't exist either?

Companies don't exist to improve society, but to provide something of value to their customers in exchange for money. If society benefits along the way, that's a happy coincidence. A plumber will fix your leaky sink, and that benefits you personally -- whether it benefits society or not is really beside the point. Similarly, investment firms and hedge funds will benefit their clients by investing their money and (hop…

Well some companies exist not to provide something of value to customers but rather provide increased earnings per share, better P/E ratios, etc to stockholders.
Post reply on HN