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

31–40 of 81 posts

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#31

Post by qwtel »

3beard wrote: post #19
pedalpete wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not sure if you are just trolling, but I'm pretty convinced that ~100% of startups are developing 'breakthrough' products. For various reasons only ~1% turn out to be very successful at it.

From an after-the-fact standpoint it's easy to point at the losers and say all kinds of nasty things about them. But since you can't reliably pick the winners of tomorrow, nor can the losers reliably pick themselves (they are usually both at different times) any sentiment towards failed startups being a waste is really just a misconception.

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#32

Post by conanbatt »

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?

I dont have sympathy to how the finance sector has behaved historically, but this opinion can only come from ignorance. Its like a 50 year old saying working for technology companies is useless because he can live without snapchat and whats app. Finance is the study and work of value, which is enough to believe it has important applications.

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#33

Post by lazaroclapp »

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…

Sure, but as a society we (should?) also try to discourage business models that significantly harm society without benefiting it in any comparable way. Hitmen provide a value to their customers in exchange for money, doesn't mean we need to allow it as a valid business model. Granted, that's a extreme example and with financial firms is often very hard to know which of their many business models provide a net benefit, a net neutral or a net harm to society. But the base premise of "well, companies should be allowed to act as unethically as the hell they wish" is not really a good or reasonable premise to accept.

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#34

Post by dmpk2k »

dqdo wrote: post #24
davidw wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a citation for that? I'm genuinely curious.

I heard that term at a conference given by Sidney Dekker. Professor Dekker is a world famous expert in risk and accident management. The links from his talk and books are below. He said "MBA stands for more bad advice" at 14:00. It is worth a watch even if you are not interested in engineering risk management. http://vimeo.com/102167635 http://sidneydekker.com/books/ From my own personal experience as a researcher in…

Is there a book you can recommend so we can get a reasonably current overview?

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#35

Post by dmpk2k »

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...

That's a false dichotomy. Obviously finance can help. Vitamin A in small amounts is healthy too. I think most people realise this.

A more interesting question is whether finance the past 15 years has become a net loss for society, not whether it sometimes does useful things.

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#36

Post by icebraining »

georgemcbay wrote: post #26
Meekro wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"investment firms and hedge funds will benefit their clients by investing their money and (hopefully) getting them a good return" Ideally, but in the really-real world they often fuck their clients because conflict of interest rules rarely exist or when they do aren't enforced. Goldman Sachs (already mentioned in the thread) being a prime example of this, eg the Abacus deal, the whole "muppet" culture, etc.

So how do they still have clients?

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#37

Post by rayiner »

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…

Who exactly do you think is bankrolling the party in SV?

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#39

Post by jcfrei »

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?

I have no problem with that statement unless you are working for a venture backed company yourself. The origin of a lot of growth in the valley is due to finance companies funneling money from pension funds and other institutional investors into VC firms. If it wasn't for the FED printing money like crazy and institutional investors scrambling to get any return on their assets Silicon Valley wouldn't have grown nearly as much in the past (and would also have had fewer bubbles).
Post reply on HN