Live data from Hacker News

Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

poetsandquants.com

71–80 of 81 posts

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#71
With any group of people, you always have a spectrum of talent and usefulness. I've worked with Stanford CS grads who would shock you with the inability to produce anything useful without handholding and worked with Stanford MBAs that I was surprised could even get their pants on in the morning. The problem is that the admissions process for most of these programs is less about the numbers and more about your ability to network or tell a compelling life story. If you can tell a story that impresses the admission folks, you're likely to get in. Sometimes this is reflective of actual talent, sometimes its a reflection of great story telling.

That being said, there a few incredibly talented and intelligent people in each class that will continue to allow these types of institutions hold the prestige that they do.

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#72
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...

A liver is a vital human organ. A liver that's three times normal size is a sign of a very sick human.

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#73
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

curious, but do you differentiate between if they're also the technical founder or not? Asked another way: Are you identifying this as a lack of tech expertise, or as a 'poisoning' of the mind irregardless of the experiences? Thanks!

Yes, though I am still not thrilled with it.

I've just seen too many "two mbas and a PowerPoint" startups, "we just need some money to build a prototype"

I would rather see a prototype (or a soft launch with a little traction) than a PowerPoint that poorly explains the implications ("lipstick is a 40 billion:ur business, if we get just ONE PERCENT")

anyway.

The trading desk I worked on, many years ago, did not hire folks wih MBAs either. Inheritance?

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#74
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Small world, I was an editor at memepool. Good to see you're still around in the trenches here after the big delicious sale.

Yay! I should reboot it. Something that isn't eithet delicious or reddit.

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#75
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'd love to understand the reasoning behind this generalization. Do you object to the content of the MBA curriculum? Is there data that suggests a causal relationship between founders with this credential and business failure?

I just don't like investing in tech startups where the founders have neither engineering nor product skill.

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#76
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...

Take a look at what happened to Titan's stock, and shareholders, after that deal.

For background on what Goldman Sachs has become, read "Why I Left Goldman Sachs: A Wall Street Story", by Greg Smith. This was recommended to me by an angry former Goldman Sachs customer after they tried to put him into a sketchy deal.

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#77
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to understand the reasoning behind this generalization. Do you object to the content of the MBA curriculum? Is there data that suggests a causal relationship between founders with this credential and business failure?

I just don't like investing in tech startups where the founders have neither engineering nor product skill.

What do you mean by product skill?

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#78
post #76

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...

Take a look at what happened to Titan's stock, and shareholders, after that deal. For background on what Goldman Sachs has become, read "Why I Left Goldman Sachs: A Wall Street Story", by Greg Smith. This was recommended to me by an angry former Goldman Sachs customer after they tried to put him into a sketchy deal.

Goldman Sachs helped Titan raise capital. If you believe that Titan hasn't performed well as a company, how is that the fault of Goldman Sachs as opposed to say, Titan's senior management team? Do you have any knowledge of trends in the global tire market? Do you know about tire subsidies from the Chinese government and how companies like Titan may have been impacted by them? What do you think would happen to Titan if it didn't have access to capital?

Wall Street firms structure countless financing deals for thousands of companies every year. Some of those companies are in better shape and better managed than others, and thus some of them are able to tap the capital markets on better terms than others.

As for the book you reference, I'm sure Goldman Sachs, like any company, is not perfect. But judging a company based on one book written by a single person with a single perspective and that wasn't exactly the recipient of universal praise is silly. If Goldman Sachs, which has been around since 1869, offered nothing of value, took advantage of its clients, and was in fact responsible for leading them to their demise, you'll have to come up with a good theory as to why it's still in business.

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#79
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't like investing in tech startups where the founders have neither engineering nor product skill.

What do you mean by product skill?

product is engineering (as in negotiation of constraints) as much as building. i look for that.

Re: Stanford MBAs Shift Away from Tech

#80
post #34
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I study project management so I only know about things from the production perspective. The following reading should get you a modern view of managing projects.

http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2000/isbn951385566X/ http://www.leanconstruction.org/media/docs/ballard2000-disse...

Post reply on HN