Business School is a Joke(web.archive.org)
web.archive.org
Business School is a Joke
http://web.archive.org/web/20080402234209/insixitive.com/2006/12/03/business-school-is-a-joke/
70 comments
consider that the author's program was an undergraduate program and try to remember how experienced or useful you were at 18-21.
This is important. I got an undergrad business degree and I got a nice background in accounting, finance, marketing, and to a lesser extent IT.
When I think back on it, either it doesn't seem useful or I've forgotten the useful bits (had some great classes on branding that taught me a lot more than what you'd learn from reading blogs or articles on it; but I couldn't write an insightful paper on it now).
But then, I've dealt with people with no background in these things and watched them make some pretty stupid mistakes that could've been prevented with basic knowledge of these subjects. (I once got a sick feeling--justified--when asking a partner about our finances after he insisted on handling them, and getting an email where he referred to "the books" in scare quotes).
On the MBA side -- the MBA program at my alma mater has placed several of my friends in jobs that were a big jump in salary and growth potential from where they were coming in -- and none of them were bankers.
I heard someone say once that an MBA is a great preparation for an entry-level CEO job, but no such job exists. That's why real world experience matters; not only do you gain perspective that will benefit your MBA education and post-MBA career, but it also helps you "know thyself" so that you don't bother with an MBA if it's not the right move for you.
Last thought: business education doesn't really prepare you for entrepreneurship, but entrepreneurship can help you benefit from a business education. Best example would be an entrepreneur who has had some failures and moderate successes, but now has the experience and skills to command a 100K+ salary and is ready to further prepare (or for the cynical, get credentialized) for a job at that level.
This is important. I got an undergrad business degree and I got a nice background in accounting, finance, marketing, and to a lesser extent IT.
When I think back on it, either it doesn't seem useful or I've forgotten the useful bits (had some great classes on branding that taught me a lot more than what you'd learn from reading blogs or articles on it; but I couldn't write an insightful paper on it now).
But then, I've dealt with people with no background in these things and watched them make some pretty stupid mistakes that could've been prevented with basic knowledge of these subjects. (I once got a sick feeling--justified--when asking a partner about our finances after he insisted on handling them, and getting an email where he referred to "the books" in scare quotes).
On the MBA side -- the MBA program at my alma mater has placed several of my friends in jobs that were a big jump in salary and growth potential from where they were coming in -- and none of them were bankers.
I heard someone say once that an MBA is a great preparation for an entry-level CEO job, but no such job exists. That's why real world experience matters; not only do you gain perspective that will benefit your MBA education and post-MBA career, but it also helps you "know thyself" so that you don't bother with an MBA if it's not the right move for you.
Last thought: business education doesn't really prepare you for entrepreneurship, but entrepreneurship can help you benefit from a business education. Best example would be an entrepreneur who has had some failures and moderate successes, but now has the experience and skills to command a 100K+ salary and is ready to further prepare (or for the cynical, get credentialized) for a job at that level.
"On the MBA side -- the MBA program at my alma mater has placed several of my friends in jobs that were a big jump in salary and growth potential from where they were coming in -- and none of them were bankers"
But I think this is what the author was trying to say. An MBA (I'll talk about the MBA since undergrad business degrees seem really terrible) is a way of gaming the corporate structure (and getting a raise in salary and so on , as you point out) more than acquiring any real skills or insights, which is why most MBA students become Management consultants vs entrepreneurs. One job is about talking the talk and the other is about walking it.
As an enginner/hacker I am a bit dubious about how business school professors can actually teach anything business related. (By and large) They have never run businesses, so how can they teach you how to run one? If they could build or run a multimillion dollar businesses would they be teaching? ( Not snark, I am genuinely curious. Can someone who has done an MBA explain how this works out. What value do these professors add. Couldn't you just read the books yourself?)
But I think this is what the author was trying to say. An MBA (I'll talk about the MBA since undergrad business degrees seem really terrible) is a way of gaming the corporate structure (and getting a raise in salary and so on , as you point out) more than acquiring any real skills or insights, which is why most MBA students become Management consultants vs entrepreneurs. One job is about talking the talk and the other is about walking it.
As an enginner/hacker I am a bit dubious about how business school professors can actually teach anything business related. (By and large) They have never run businesses, so how can they teach you how to run one? If they could build or run a multimillion dollar businesses would they be teaching? ( Not snark, I am genuinely curious. Can someone who has done an MBA explain how this works out. What value do these professors add. Couldn't you just read the books yourself?)
I think a lot of the comments in this discussion, yours included, seem to be misunderstanding what business school is about.
Business schools are teaching management, which by definition is about reducing risk and optimizing existing operations in a running business, hence the emphasis on accounting, finance, etc. The idea is that looking at the whole picture, an MBA is able to more efficiently manage an existing corporation. The comments made about MBAs seeing people as "tools" is spot on and in recent years the organization behavior subject has made a lot of progress in reversing this damaging trend, started during the industrial revolution.
On the other hand, entrepreneurship is all about taking an invention and turning it into an innovation and a sustainable company, and in the process mitigating various business risks (e.g. is there anyone to buy the product, how to make the product, what product to make, etc.). The two (startups vs. companies) are fundamentally different (I elaborate on this here: http://www.deyanvitanov.com/entrepreneurship-foundations/sta...). Very few business schools make the claim to be catering to the entrepreneurial crowd, and even fewer do it well - I can speak only for Stanford GSB, although I have heard similar for Berkeley and Babson, among others I am sure.
So the comment about talking the talk and walking the walk sounds nice, but the assumptions behind it simply fall flat.
FYI, I have an MBA from Stanford and I am basing my comment on my experience there. At the same time, I came to business school specifically to start a new company, so I am hardly the typical MBA I think.
Business schools are teaching management, which by definition is about reducing risk and optimizing existing operations in a running business, hence the emphasis on accounting, finance, etc. The idea is that looking at the whole picture, an MBA is able to more efficiently manage an existing corporation. The comments made about MBAs seeing people as "tools" is spot on and in recent years the organization behavior subject has made a lot of progress in reversing this damaging trend, started during the industrial revolution.
On the other hand, entrepreneurship is all about taking an invention and turning it into an innovation and a sustainable company, and in the process mitigating various business risks (e.g. is there anyone to buy the product, how to make the product, what product to make, etc.). The two (startups vs. companies) are fundamentally different (I elaborate on this here: http://www.deyanvitanov.com/entrepreneurship-foundations/sta...). Very few business schools make the claim to be catering to the entrepreneurial crowd, and even fewer do it well - I can speak only for Stanford GSB, although I have heard similar for Berkeley and Babson, among others I am sure.
So the comment about talking the talk and walking the walk sounds nice, but the assumptions behind it simply fall flat.
FYI, I have an MBA from Stanford and I am basing my comment on my experience there. At the same time, I came to business school specifically to start a new company, so I am hardly the typical MBA I think.
They have never run businesses, so how can they teach you how to run one? If they could build or run a multimillion dollar businesses would they be teaching?
Several of the better teachers at my university had consulting gigs on the side where they worked on real world projects that interested them. A few had worked many years in industry and now wanted to do something different. Some genuinely preferred the more theoretical and research aspect of the field and felt that a university was the best place to foster that. And yes a few where useless, could probably never cut in industry and just hung around because for some reason no one had fired them yet.
Conversely, having running a business will teach you many things, but there are other things you can only learn by having studied and carefully analysed and compared hundreds of businesses and the people who work there. So just because you have never run a business yourself doesn't mean you have nothing to teach, and just because you happened to be in charge of a business that happened to successful doesn't mean you know all there is about all aspects of running a company.
Several of the better teachers at my university had consulting gigs on the side where they worked on real world projects that interested them. A few had worked many years in industry and now wanted to do something different. Some genuinely preferred the more theoretical and research aspect of the field and felt that a university was the best place to foster that. And yes a few where useless, could probably never cut in industry and just hung around because for some reason no one had fired them yet.
Conversely, having running a business will teach you many things, but there are other things you can only learn by having studied and carefully analysed and compared hundreds of businesses and the people who work there. So just because you have never run a business yourself doesn't mean you have nothing to teach, and just because you happened to be in charge of a business that happened to successful doesn't mean you know all there is about all aspects of running a company.
If they could build or run a multimillion dollar businesses would they be teaching?
Business school professors are very well paid and live the life of leisure. Starting a business is risky and is hard work, and business PhDs aren't generally recruited to work as CEOs.
Business school professors are very well paid and live the life of leisure. Starting a business is risky and is hard work, and business PhDs aren't generally recruited to work as CEOs.
Agreed on the first point. That's why my example is more like someone who for whatever reason (kids probably) is ready to trade the ups and downs of entrepreneurship for a steady high-level job.
To your second point: Is that true of most b-school professors? I honestly don't know, but I think some if not most have some good experience. The guy who taught me finance rocketed up the ranks for Coke, ran the operations of a multinational region, and retired to teach while in his 40s.
My international business professor, however, was an insufferable douche who had no real-world experience that I know of.
To your second point: Is that true of most b-school professors? I honestly don't know, but I think some if not most have some good experience. The guy who taught me finance rocketed up the ranks for Coke, ran the operations of a multinational region, and retired to teach while in his 40s.
My international business professor, however, was an insufferable douche who had no real-world experience that I know of.
UChicago teaches business differently that basically every business school in the country, so take this anecdote with a grain of salt. The have a quantitative/scientific focus that many other schools lack. Your example shows this perfectly, as the professor presented real data to you instead of fictional data.
On the whole, there is still a large problem with undergraduate degrees in business.
On the whole, there is still a large problem with undergraduate degrees in business.
Actually, I'd argue that among the top 7 business schools, there are certain distinctions between them that will appeal to different people with different professional goals.
MIT, UChicago, and Stanford all seem to appeal more to engineering types and offer a more quantitative / scientific focus.
Wharton is known for their emphasis on finance and is usually ideal for people wanting to become IBankers.
Columbia has its roots in Benjamin Graham-style investing and you'll see a lot of students there go on to those types of hedge funds.
Harvard is more regarded for its emphasis on management and heavy use of case studies, and the people that go there tend to seek out consulting or rotational programs within the F500.
MIT, UChicago, and Stanford all seem to appeal more to engineering types and offer a more quantitative / scientific focus.
Wharton is known for their emphasis on finance and is usually ideal for people wanting to become IBankers.
Columbia has its roots in Benjamin Graham-style investing and you'll see a lot of students there go on to those types of hedge funds.
Harvard is more regarded for its emphasis on management and heavy use of case studies, and the people that go there tend to seek out consulting or rotational programs within the F500.
Fair point, but you have to consider where the distinctions come from. For example, at MIT I'd be willing to bet the quantitative focus comes from the fact that many engineers who go there pick us business as a second degree as an undergrad. At Chicago, the quantitative/scientific focus stems from the fact that the department truly believes in it as a method of investigation. Chicago is all about the raw data and real life case studies. It's my understanding that many other business departments differ in this respect.
Of course, this is all anecdotal evidence I've gathered from talking to Chicago alumni, so take it for what you will.
Of course, this is all anecdotal evidence I've gathered from talking to Chicago alumni, so take it for what you will.
Accounting, supply chain, and finance are fairly empirical and solid skill based everywhere. Actuarial science programs are practically straight-up math. Sure, in general undergraduate business programs are less rigorous than engineering or physics, but some are certainly based on legitimate hard skills and knowledge; you can't write them off as wishy-washy BS.
I am studying at a top Master's program in Europe at a Business School and it's oh-so familiar undergraduate or not. I also took a whopping 1 course at the business school during my undergraduate before switching to computer science because it was mind numbingly stupid. The lack of math skills, the type of people it attracts, the teaching style is all accurate for undergraduate. For the master's level I see more motivated and smarter people but the teaching, goals and end result is pretty much the same and leaves so much to be desired.
In one way, it feels nice to know most schools suck just as bad, but in another way it's a shame for humanity that this seems to be the norm.
In one way, it feels nice to know most schools suck just as bad, but in another way it's a shame for humanity that this seems to be the norm.
The experience of being there when a room full of really bright and really accomplished kids learned that the company that 9/10 had passed on became a multi-million dollar success was priceless (and vice-versa). The message was unmistakeable.
What was the message?
What was the message?
I wonder though, why is entrepreneurship devoted to a single class? Doesn't that kind of reinforce the idea that most of business school is just training for middle/upper management in established companies?
It isn't, the parent probably just didnt know the name of the course being taught (or didn't reference). I'm a current UChicago Booth student. My bet is that the parent poster was auditing a class of Building the New Venture. The following classes are Entrepreneurship or Venture Capital focused (in no particular order):
One of the people responding to the parent noted about how different the UChicago method is: focus on real data, real experience, and hard analysis. I'd say at least 30% of our class has some sort of hard math/science/engineering background.
Building the New Venture
Entrepreneurial Finance and Private Equity
New Venture Strategy
New Enterprise and Small Business Management
Special Topics in Entrepreneurship: New Venture Challenge
Entrepreneurial Internship Seminar
Commercializing Innovation
Social Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurial Selling
New Venture and Small Enterprise Lab
Private Equity/Venture Capital Lab
International Entrepreneurship Lab - China
E-Business Technology
Developing New Products and Services
Laboratory in New Product and Strategy Development I
Technology Strategy
Designing and Leading the Entrepreneurial Firm
Statistical Insight into Marketing Consulting and Entrepreneurship
Innovation in Energy Markets and Opportunities in Renewable Energy
Structuring Venture Capital, Private Equity, and Entrepreneurial Transactions
One of the people responding to the parent noted about how different the UChicago method is: focus on real data, real experience, and hard analysis. I'd say at least 30% of our class has some sort of hard math/science/engineering background.
What exactly does your story prove? Even YC and successful VCs guess incorrectly frequently. Was the unmistakable message that the future can't always be predicted?
Whereas the author's experience was that "[they were being] designed to be investment bankers and management consultants", this Booth professor had designed a lesson around the unpredictability and inadequacy of the standard analytical techniques. That is the difference.
I have been on both sides of this feeling. In my freshman and sophomore year, I believed school was crap. Here are the feelings and attitudes I had:
1. school can't teach me much
2. I already know so much
3. Gosh why am I here?
4. Am I ever going to use this?
I was so turned off by the busi100 classes that I gave up even applying for business. Instead, I chose the easiest major on campus(communications) in hopes that I can quickly get my degree requirements and then drop in to higher level busi classes bypassing the annoying b-school prerequisites.
So after sophomore year I took a 3 semester break. During that time, I was working on my startup and living life as a non-student. It is also when I realized the holes in my "skillset"(for a lack of better word). I returned to school with a new attitude: I am going to nitpick classes to fill up the obvious holes.
My attitude upon return:
1. I have stuff to learn
2. I will take very specific classes fill up specific holes
3. I don't expect the class in itself to teach me as much as for it to provoke thought in me
My experience has been a complete opposite since return. I have learned a tonne from a few specific classes(sales management, market strat, market analysis). I am a startup guy. So when I say learned, I am talking about very practical shit that I am putting to use right now.
It's all about the attitude IMO. A subtle thing I realized: the classes in itself might not teach you but they can provoke thought in you that pushes you to learn specific stuff yourself that you wouldn't have known about.
If you think school can't teach you anything, take time off! It'll validate or invalidate your thinking.
1. school can't teach me much
2. I already know so much
3. Gosh why am I here?
4. Am I ever going to use this?
I was so turned off by the busi100 classes that I gave up even applying for business. Instead, I chose the easiest major on campus(communications) in hopes that I can quickly get my degree requirements and then drop in to higher level busi classes bypassing the annoying b-school prerequisites.
So after sophomore year I took a 3 semester break. During that time, I was working on my startup and living life as a non-student. It is also when I realized the holes in my "skillset"(for a lack of better word). I returned to school with a new attitude: I am going to nitpick classes to fill up the obvious holes.
My attitude upon return:
1. I have stuff to learn
2. I will take very specific classes fill up specific holes
3. I don't expect the class in itself to teach me as much as for it to provoke thought in me
My experience has been a complete opposite since return. I have learned a tonne from a few specific classes(sales management, market strat, market analysis). I am a startup guy. So when I say learned, I am talking about very practical shit that I am putting to use right now.
It's all about the attitude IMO. A subtle thing I realized: the classes in itself might not teach you but they can provoke thought in you that pushes you to learn specific stuff yourself that you wouldn't have known about.
If you think school can't teach you anything, take time off! It'll validate or invalidate your thinking.
I would say the same, a lot of the uni I've done, especially the straight computer science stuff has been basic looks which I picked up before I took the classes online.
There are though benefits in that these classes kind of force you to take a slower and more in depth look at some things and you end up learning the area better. I know with my operating systems class, I already knew a lot of the basics about how it all worked, but taking the focus to learn it well taught be quiet a bit I think.
There are though benefits in that these classes kind of force you to take a slower and more in depth look at some things and you end up learning the area better. I know with my operating systems class, I already knew a lot of the basics about how it all worked, but taking the focus to learn it well taught be quiet a bit I think.
I think it's more learning things that you have had no need for, so you wont use it to learn it. I think co-ops should start very early in people's university careers so they can see what they need in their educations.
I feel the HN title is a touch misleading - when I hear B-school, I think MBA, maybe that's just me. The fact that this is undergrad is significant. In my opinion, thought leaders, both from the external 'business' world as well as top professors, often feel it is a waste of their time teaching undergrads, many of whom are there because it is what one is supposed to do (ie. go out and get an education) rather than because they really want to, and have paid out of their own pocket, to be there, which is most often the case with MBA's.
I know that in my Computer Science undergrad, while I was interested in learning, I was more interested in living the student life. I just recently finished an MBA and while it fell short on some fronts, the talent of the professors, many of whom were doing real work and affecting change in the real world, did not disappoint, especially in the fully elective 2nd year. Further, students have much more to contribute after they have done, and have been vetted on what they have done, in the years after finishing their undergrad, rather than on what clubs they joined in their first of year of general undergrad. Undergrad Business degree != MBA.
I know that in my Computer Science undergrad, while I was interested in learning, I was more interested in living the student life. I just recently finished an MBA and while it fell short on some fronts, the talent of the professors, many of whom were doing real work and affecting change in the real world, did not disappoint, especially in the fully elective 2nd year. Further, students have much more to contribute after they have done, and have been vetted on what they have done, in the years after finishing their undergrad, rather than on what clubs they joined in their first of year of general undergrad. Undergrad Business degree != MBA.
Long time lurker here =).
Agreed, I'm doing an M.S now (non-business) and I've always been under the impression that the MBA crowd is a little bit older - not too old, but people that have had a few years of experience in an industry. Don't quote me on this but don't most Ivy MBA programs require 3-5 years of actual work experience for acceptance?
I also have a few friends doing MBAs and most of what they do involves case studies of real companies and problems that they faced.
-- Not advocating everyone go out there and get an MBA, but the title should mention that it's undergrad business school.
Agreed, I'm doing an M.S now (non-business) and I've always been under the impression that the MBA crowd is a little bit older - not too old, but people that have had a few years of experience in an industry. Don't quote me on this but don't most Ivy MBA programs require 3-5 years of actual work experience for acceptance?
I also have a few friends doing MBAs and most of what they do involves case studies of real companies and problems that they faced.
-- Not advocating everyone go out there and get an MBA, but the title should mention that it's undergrad business school.
The MBA at Michigan is the undergrad degree with more drinking--I mean networking.
Are you implying that an MBA isn't a joke?
Most of the ivies do not have undergraduate business programs, probably for this very reason. In that context the MBA makes more sense; acquire a broad quality liberal arts education as an undergraduate (electrical engineering, math, Spanish, philosophy, sociology, ...) and then supplement with the best parts of management, marketing, finance, supply chain management, IT, and accounting. The undergrad major is more a supply and demand story; students irrationally demand it so it gets supplied. Good luck getting a management position with your management undergrad degree and good luck going to graduate school with the skills you've acquired. But they sign up in droves so...
That said there are definitely skills acquired in a finance or accounting or IT program. I can't say for sure with marketing but I would suspect to a lesser degree them too. His beef seems to be primarily with a management major and I'm totally sympathetic to that point.
That said there are definitely skills acquired in a finance or accounting or IT program. I can't say for sure with marketing but I would suspect to a lesser degree them too. His beef seems to be primarily with a management major and I'm totally sympathetic to that point.
"Mandatory group work ... teaches kids how to assign tasks to people who aren’t capable of doing them, how to schedule wasteful meetings to re-format and explain individuals’ work, and how to make bad and inconsistent PowerPoint presentations."
So much group work I had in college started out with "keep meeting with your team". It was all just an exercise in seeing how much time we could waste in pointless meetings. Of course when I tried to delegate work, so we could actually accomplish things and waste less time in meetings, some silly girl tattle taled on me saying: "Jason doesn't want us to meet enough".
So much group work I had in college started out with "keep meeting with your team". It was all just an exercise in seeing how much time we could waste in pointless meetings. Of course when I tried to delegate work, so we could actually accomplish things and waste less time in meetings, some silly girl tattle taled on me saying: "Jason doesn't want us to meet enough".
Having context to put lessons in is very important for effective academic learning (or almost any learning).
For an engineer, learning electrical theory from a text book makes a lot more sense if you have toyed around with an Arduino before.
For an undergraduate business major who may never have seen a P&L statement, let alone put one together, I can see that it would be tough to find the subject useful or engaging. This is why most MBA programs won't consider applicants until they have some industry experience. Academic learning works much better when you have a foundation to build on, and for an undergraduate studying business, it seems it would be easy to become disenfranchised without this foundation.
For an engineer, learning electrical theory from a text book makes a lot more sense if you have toyed around with an Arduino before.
For an undergraduate business major who may never have seen a P&L statement, let alone put one together, I can see that it would be tough to find the subject useful or engaging. This is why most MBA programs won't consider applicants until they have some industry experience. Academic learning works much better when you have a foundation to build on, and for an undergraduate studying business, it seems it would be easy to become disenfranchised without this foundation.
First, being consistently ranked beside MIT’s, UPenn’s, and Stanford’s is not the same thing as being at MIT, UPenn, or Stanford. Second, this kind of thing is much more valuable once you're older and have some perspective (hence the MBA). Business degrees are generally about operational aspects of running a business, not the startup aspects, so if you expect them to teach you how to build a run-away success you're in for a disappointment. That doesn't mean a business degree isn't valuable (in and of itself it doesn't mean it's valuable either, but at least you should know what you're getting into).
I just recently graduated from a top undergraduate b-school program. As an entrepreneur, I don't see anything that enticing about going back to get an MBA. Even if I was accepted into a top tier program. Why you ask?
Well, I am going to provide a very subjective opinion here, but would love to get some responses...
Most top ranked MBA programs cater to those who want to do one of 4 things after they graduate:
1. Become an Associate/VP in Private Equity 2. Become an Associate/VP in a Hedge Fund/Trading 3. Become an Associate in Management Consulting 4. Become a corporate executive
Now an MBA has some real benefit for those entering these fields and there is nothing wrong there. If you're an entrepreneur, I don't really see the added benefit of getting an MBA. Most of the knowledge obtained in the coursework can be learned through experience or just by picking up some literature (see "The 10-day MBA" by Steven Silbiger). From many seasoned entrepreneurs I've spoken with, an MBA limits the time you could be spending starting your business (unless you can start while in your program like Jerry Yang or Sergey/Larry)
There is an advantage through networking with other like-minded entrepreneurs in your program and using the school's resources, but it pretty much stops there.
The one exception I would make for an MBA program really benefiting the entrepreneur is hands down...Stanford.
Stanford has the proximity to the Valley and also the roster of success stories (yahoo, google, HP, Cisco, Sun) but it's real value is that it serves as an ad-hoc incubator for start-up innovation. Just take a minute and subscribe to the free podcasts from the STVP (Stanford Technology Ventures Program) on itunes and you'll get an idea of why Stanford seems to be the only program that values entrepreneurship.
If anyone can think of other MBA programs that help entrepreneurs, I would like to hear about them.
Well, I am going to provide a very subjective opinion here, but would love to get some responses...
Most top ranked MBA programs cater to those who want to do one of 4 things after they graduate:
1. Become an Associate/VP in Private Equity 2. Become an Associate/VP in a Hedge Fund/Trading 3. Become an Associate in Management Consulting 4. Become a corporate executive
Now an MBA has some real benefit for those entering these fields and there is nothing wrong there. If you're an entrepreneur, I don't really see the added benefit of getting an MBA. Most of the knowledge obtained in the coursework can be learned through experience or just by picking up some literature (see "The 10-day MBA" by Steven Silbiger). From many seasoned entrepreneurs I've spoken with, an MBA limits the time you could be spending starting your business (unless you can start while in your program like Jerry Yang or Sergey/Larry)
There is an advantage through networking with other like-minded entrepreneurs in your program and using the school's resources, but it pretty much stops there.
The one exception I would make for an MBA program really benefiting the entrepreneur is hands down...Stanford.
Stanford has the proximity to the Valley and also the roster of success stories (yahoo, google, HP, Cisco, Sun) but it's real value is that it serves as an ad-hoc incubator for start-up innovation. Just take a minute and subscribe to the free podcasts from the STVP (Stanford Technology Ventures Program) on itunes and you'll get an idea of why Stanford seems to be the only program that values entrepreneurship.
If anyone can think of other MBA programs that help entrepreneurs, I would like to hear about them.
On the MBA, a few friends w/ science backgrounds said they cruised through top 10 b-schools without much effort. They did it only to transition from science to business careers quickly. Their advice was to skim an intro finance & marketing book. The rest was crap.
A school like Michigan draws from kids whose high school experience may be quite varied; as a result most intro classes are extremely slow, memorization intensive, and focus on very crude sorts of assignments and testing.
When these sorts of classes are used as admissions criteria for special programs (such as the BBA) you end up with a huge amount of competitiveness even though the material is easy.
The inevitable consequence of this is a lot of busy work, etc., so that some students eventually stand out as having done a better job at learning easy material and can be awarded the prize (admission to the BBA program, etc.).
I was shocked by the phenomenon of students ganging up on the professors to make tests "open note", and other approaches that allow less able students who are willing to use brute force approaches to thrive.
Note: In life, intelligence isn't really all that important, so the students have the right idea and so the rewards they reap for that behavior probably predict future economic rewards.
When these sorts of classes are used as admissions criteria for special programs (such as the BBA) you end up with a huge amount of competitiveness even though the material is easy.
The inevitable consequence of this is a lot of busy work, etc., so that some students eventually stand out as having done a better job at learning easy material and can be awarded the prize (admission to the BBA program, etc.).
I was shocked by the phenomenon of students ganging up on the professors to make tests "open note", and other approaches that allow less able students who are willing to use brute force approaches to thrive.
Note: In life, intelligence isn't really all that important, so the students have the right idea and so the rewards they reap for that behavior probably predict future economic rewards.
An undergraduate degree in this country teaches you how to become a worker bee. If you like being a worker bee, getting a decent(?) salary, taking 2 weeks and then later in life maybe 6 weeks vacation, by all means study business, marketing, etc. Otherwise, get educated.
"Self education is, I firmly believe, the only kid of education there is." -Isaac Asimov
If only we could have a few more people every year become free thinkers and creators.
"Self education is, I firmly believe, the only kid of education there is." -Isaac Asimov
If only we could have a few more people every year become free thinkers and creators.
He likely meant "Go to school/college to learn, not to 'be taught' everything by your teachers."
Didn't Asimov do an advanced degree in chemistry?
Yes he did. Medicine, law, engineering, mathematics, etc., most people will need to go to college and graduate programs. Tough to self-educate in those areas.
There's an interesting book called "Managers Not MBAs", written by a professor of business, which talks about why the MBA system is pretty broken.
IMO, studying business as an undergrad is pretty useless. Study something real (science or engineering), and if you want to learn about business later, go to business school (or start a company if you really want to learn about business).
IMO, studying business as an undergrad is pretty useless. Study something real (science or engineering), and if you want to learn about business later, go to business school (or start a company if you really want to learn about business).
LOL @ studying something "real" like science or engineering.
My friend, you wouldn't last a day in the Amazonian jungle with a native tribe. (Anthropology, but thats not real.)
Study what you love first and foremost, even if thats business. Everything else will fall into place.
My friend, you wouldn't last a day in the Amazonian jungle with a native tribe. (Anthropology, but thats not real.)
Study what you love first and foremost, even if thats business. Everything else will fall into place.
Anthropology, but thats not real.
At the undergrad level, maybe not. At higher levels, most things become a lot more real. Of course, you aren't likely to be doing that sort of field work as an undergrad anyway (or so I hear from high school friends who went on to study anthropology in college).
At the undergrad level, maybe not. At higher levels, most things become a lot more real. Of course, you aren't likely to be doing that sort of field work as an undergrad anyway (or so I hear from high school friends who went on to study anthropology in college).
I have a friend who went to South America the summer after 2nd year. Also a roommate who went to Peru after 3rd year, but she had to apply and interview to go with the prof.
I thought I would chime in, since I think my experience is slightly unique.
I enrolled in undergrad at Boston University as a Computer Systems and Physics major. After two horrible years of all-nighters and poor grades, I came to the realization that I didn't even like the jobs I would be lined up for (this was shortly after the dot com bubble burst) or the people I was going to be working with.
So I left the major and completed my degree from tiny Ithaca College as an Integrated Marketing Communications major.
Now, after a few years in the professional world as an ad exec, I'm pursuing my MBA from Boston College.
So coming from a mix engineer/marketing background, I can say that business school as a whole plays it far too safe. They dumb down the math requirements, and they don't push the "soft skills" enough either. Our "soft skills" class was treated pretty universally as a joke, and yet I didn't leave my corporate finance class feeling any more knowledgeable in that area either.
After a recent trip to Palo Alto, I have been dreaming about the opportunities that would be in front of me if I had pursued my MBA at Stanford, instead of taking the easy way out to Boston College. But in reality, I find the true value in b-school to be from your fellow classmates, network of alumni, and time you spend actually thinking about business.
Let me elaborate a little on that last point. This is the first time in my (short) career I've been able to read articles, discuss them with professors, and spend time critiquing existing business models. While this time spent won't show up on any transcripts, I think it will be invaluable to my future prospects.
I'll cut this comment short - but I encourage all to evaluate both the student body and the network of alumni before choosing a b-school. These are easily the two strongest aspects of the education you will take away afterwards.
all the best, jeff vincent
I enrolled in undergrad at Boston University as a Computer Systems and Physics major. After two horrible years of all-nighters and poor grades, I came to the realization that I didn't even like the jobs I would be lined up for (this was shortly after the dot com bubble burst) or the people I was going to be working with.
So I left the major and completed my degree from tiny Ithaca College as an Integrated Marketing Communications major.
Now, after a few years in the professional world as an ad exec, I'm pursuing my MBA from Boston College.
So coming from a mix engineer/marketing background, I can say that business school as a whole plays it far too safe. They dumb down the math requirements, and they don't push the "soft skills" enough either. Our "soft skills" class was treated pretty universally as a joke, and yet I didn't leave my corporate finance class feeling any more knowledgeable in that area either.
After a recent trip to Palo Alto, I have been dreaming about the opportunities that would be in front of me if I had pursued my MBA at Stanford, instead of taking the easy way out to Boston College. But in reality, I find the true value in b-school to be from your fellow classmates, network of alumni, and time you spend actually thinking about business.
Let me elaborate a little on that last point. This is the first time in my (short) career I've been able to read articles, discuss them with professors, and spend time critiquing existing business models. While this time spent won't show up on any transcripts, I think it will be invaluable to my future prospects.
I'll cut this comment short - but I encourage all to evaluate both the student body and the network of alumni before choosing a b-school. These are easily the two strongest aspects of the education you will take away afterwards.
all the best, jeff vincent
Background : I started a business and managed to build it out with no formal education at all.
I often wonder whether formal education in business would have helped me, or hindered me.
I'm certain the structured information contained in a structured business course would have been useful.
At the same time, when I was starting out, I did a lot of things that no reasonable educational institution would advocate just to get through the month and make payday. During all of this, I was reading and learning as fast as I could about all of the numerous knowledge gaps I began to realise I had, as I came up against various walls.
After years of experience in running a business, when I read books about business/sales/marketing/economics, it's far easier to process and understand the theory.
I think any kind of education about business is valuable, but I also think it's 10 times more valuable if you have some kind of real-life experience to which you can map the theory.
I often wonder whether formal education in business would have helped me, or hindered me.
I'm certain the structured information contained in a structured business course would have been useful.
At the same time, when I was starting out, I did a lot of things that no reasonable educational institution would advocate just to get through the month and make payday. During all of this, I was reading and learning as fast as I could about all of the numerous knowledge gaps I began to realise I had, as I came up against various walls.
After years of experience in running a business, when I read books about business/sales/marketing/economics, it's far easier to process and understand the theory.
I think any kind of education about business is valuable, but I also think it's 10 times more valuable if you have some kind of real-life experience to which you can map the theory.
I have always thought business school would be a lot better off if people were forced to read people like Seth Godin or even Chris Anderson.
My problem with business people is that they learn buzz words and jargon, and often treat the "makers" as tools. I would have a lot more respect for b-school if business majors were forced to pick a "concentration"- engineering, CS, etc. They wouldn't be expected to be great at their concentration; they just would need to know enough about what the people they're managing do.
I love this line: "For one, it’s harder to teach engineering to a marketer than it is to teach marketing to an engineer."
It's my belief that most engineers or programmers could be great marketers or business people, if they didn't have to spend all their time creating things. Business people have time on their side- they don't really have to make anything, so they can spend more time getting ahead.
My problem with business people is that they learn buzz words and jargon, and often treat the "makers" as tools. I would have a lot more respect for b-school if business majors were forced to pick a "concentration"- engineering, CS, etc. They wouldn't be expected to be great at their concentration; they just would need to know enough about what the people they're managing do.
I love this line: "For one, it’s harder to teach engineering to a marketer than it is to teach marketing to an engineer."
It's my belief that most engineers or programmers could be great marketers or business people, if they didn't have to spend all their time creating things. Business people have time on their side- they don't really have to make anything, so they can spend more time getting ahead.
I don't think anyone is going to be cured of buzzworditis by being forced to read Godin and Anderson.
Can I interest you in my biz, which is a freemium play on a purple cow concept? We just need enough money to get through The Dip.
Can I interest you in my biz, which is a freemium play on a purple cow concept? We just need enough money to get through The Dip.
That is true. Also any specialized profession is going to have jargon just because it makes it easier to discuss things.
Sure, Godin has his own buzz words. But his messages are simple. Things like "Go above and beyond" ( http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/02/the-least-i-... or http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/02/whats-expect... )
It's obvious stuff, no doubt- but it's stuff we all seem to forget.
It's obvious stuff, no doubt- but it's stuff we all seem to forget.
I wonder where the problem that engineers have with business people comes from. Is it because on average business people get paid more than developers even though it is easier to measure the contribution of developers? I would really like to know.
I dated a finance major (in the undergrad business school) for two years when I was at Georgetown. My impression of her classes was the same - that they were training, not education, and intellectually void.
That said, she's now a successful analyst at Merrill, so she must have gotten something out of it.
That said, she's now a successful analyst at Merrill, so she must have gotten something out of it.
Depends what you mean by "something," I suppose. Pedigree and pathway, sure. Knowledge and real training? That's the issue being discussed here.
Pedigree and pathway would get her hired, but not make her successful. She got 5/5 ratings in her recent reviews.
This is a silly back and forth until you can point at the "something" she got from b-school aside from pathway and pedigree. Again, that's what's being discussed. It's certainly possible that the degree got her the job, yet her own natural intelligence, undergrad experience, or professional experience led to her success. And /not/ the b-school curriculum.
Yeah, I suppose that's reasonable - in fact, it's probably true.
I would largely agree that a business education doesn't prepare you for entrepreneurship. But it isn't exactly valueless. Here's some of the courses and concepts I liked about MY business education:
- Case studies: in accounting/biz analysis class, we learned by studying fictional and real case studies, from jewelery startups started by 2 former students to mid-sized soda manufacturing companies. You get a background about the founders, some key market factors, relevant prices and financial figures, etc. You then come up with your own conclusions and rationalize why, and present your findings under a Socratic teaching environment.
Strategy course + game simulation: The strategy game was a lot of fun, you get together with your group and try to take over the shoe business by building factories in 4 continents, setting prices, budgets, R&D, etc. It also based its currencies against real world currencies. Every week, you got your results and tried to out-compete other groups.
Operations: My ops prof worked in consulting and bragged to clients that if he couldn't find a way to save you money in 20 mins, he'd consult for free. He dives straight into the books and starts crossing out inventory. Why? Inventory takes storage space, heat, security, insurance. Ops is largely inapplicable to web startups because it deals with tangibles. But I still liked learning about it.
I would say business schools aren't really for the hacker/entrepreneur mindset. They are generally for people who want careers in management.
- Case studies: in accounting/biz analysis class, we learned by studying fictional and real case studies, from jewelery startups started by 2 former students to mid-sized soda manufacturing companies. You get a background about the founders, some key market factors, relevant prices and financial figures, etc. You then come up with your own conclusions and rationalize why, and present your findings under a Socratic teaching environment.
Strategy course + game simulation: The strategy game was a lot of fun, you get together with your group and try to take over the shoe business by building factories in 4 continents, setting prices, budgets, R&D, etc. It also based its currencies against real world currencies. Every week, you got your results and tried to out-compete other groups.
Operations: My ops prof worked in consulting and bragged to clients that if he couldn't find a way to save you money in 20 mins, he'd consult for free. He dives straight into the books and starts crossing out inventory. Why? Inventory takes storage space, heat, security, insurance. Ops is largely inapplicable to web startups because it deals with tangibles. But I still liked learning about it.
I would say business schools aren't really for the hacker/entrepreneur mindset. They are generally for people who want careers in management.
I hope he thinks about the implications to each business he consults before he starts crossing inventory out willy-nilly. Most of the time, it might make sense, and certainly, it's good to question whether you need it.
But just doing so to optimize solely on cost might be a local maxima. You might impact other less tangible aspects/dimensions/parameters of the business in a negative way, and usually other people have to suffer at the hands of MBA's decisions.
But just doing so to optimize solely on cost might be a local maxima. You might impact other less tangible aspects/dimensions/parameters of the business in a negative way, and usually other people have to suffer at the hands of MBA's decisions.
I'm sure he considers the impact of the decisions along with the clients he works for.
You are right that other less tangible aspects can be impacted in unforeseen ways. But that has nothing to do with the decisions of business people or MBA's. It has to do with leadership and corporate culture.
You are right that other less tangible aspects can be impacted in unforeseen ways. But that has nothing to do with the decisions of business people or MBA's. It has to do with leadership and corporate culture.
Ha! He makes some good points but he is way wrong about math and econ classes being better than business classes. It is the same bullshit. Professors are never right for the job they are doing especially in introductory courses designed to lay the foundation. We spend 50 minutes covering definitions and examples that can be covered in less than 20 and we spend 50 minutes because professors are lazy and the curriculum is divided into 50 minutes for no apparent reason whatsoever.
While I was reading this three separate things sprang in my mind and I think there is some degree of connection between them. Over the last decade busness degrees have become more and more popular, leaving engineering and science for nerds. Also I have seen more high school kids with an Idea that collage is waste of time and money, they better of trying to make it on their own. It seems that all these business schools which crunch out PHBs have given bad reputation to a collage degree.
Currently a MBA student at Stanford Graduate School of Business, I'm also bootstrapping a startup with two CS graduate students and a seasoned designer. As an entrepreneur, I can definitely speak for the benefits that Stanford GSB provides:
(1) The Stanford and Stanford GSB networks are both phenomenal. Alumni are very accessible and connected with the school. Classmates are highly collaborative and bring contacts from almost every industry you can think of and want to learn about. To start a business, access to relevant networks is critical and GSB provides that.
(2) Entrepreneurship classes taught by experienced industry veterans. Some of my favorite classes are taught by serial entrepreneurs, famous venture capitalists, or legendary executives including Eric Schmidt, Andy Grove, Mark Leslie, Andy Rachleff, Audrey MacLean, Mike Lyons, Joe Peterson, and Harold Irving Grousbeck, among many others.
(3) The roster of speakers that come to speak both at GSB and other parts of Stanford is extremely useful for entrepreneurs. Classes and clubs invite speakers including Ron Conway, Peter Thiel, Jack Dorsey (founder of Twitter), Shawn Fanning (founder of Napster), Chad Hurley (founder of Youtube), Aaron Patzer (founder of Mint.com), Mark Pincus (founder of Zynga), and many others. STVP (stvp.stanford.edu) and ETL (etl.stanford.edu) are two other great resources. As a student, you can even take the initiative as a club leader to approach some of the most successful people in the valley to come speak.
(4) Stanford GSB has a Center for Entrepreneurial Studies which organizes seasoned entrepreneurs, angels and venture investors to hold 1:1 free advisory sessions with entrepreneurial students to discuss their startup ideas and help students build the network. I've personally found them very valuable.
(5) Many successful alumni who are entrepreneurs, active angels, or venture investors often hold intimate networking events, such as as small group dinners, to meet with entrepreneurial students. It's another way to network and receive feedback on your startup idea!
(6) The school also offers classes in which students across business school, engineering school and other schools can work in a team on a startup idea together. Some of these class projects continued as startups after the class.
Overall, the best value is the access to investor, entrepreneur and industry networks, the ability to meet other entrepreneurial students, and to receive advice from some of the best entrepreneurs in the industry.
Overall, the best value is the access to investor, entrepreneur and industry networks, the ability to meet other entrepreneurial students, and to receive advice from some of the best entrepreneurs in the industry.
Seriously? Did you even read TFA? The guy is saying that undergrad business majors are asinine. Probably true even at Stanford. What this has do with with a nameroll of 300 rich people you're paying $100k a year to rub shoulders with, I haven't a clue.
We all have to admit it. Network is important for one to succeed in business, in addition to raw talent and a great product. I'm not saying you can bypass the second two factors with just a network, but with a strong network, it only helps. Someone can help you introduce the product to the world and someone very smart can give you great advice, if you don't fool yourself into thinking you don't need mentoring from some of the best in the industry. I've learned a great deal by seeking advice from these leaders.
I wasn't completely sold on a MBA before coming to GSB and that's why it took me longer to come than average classmates. I almost didn't come, with the same perspective you may have.
However, having spent 1.5 years here, I think it's really worthwhile even though it used up all my savings prior to business school (yes, it's expensive). I did actually learn valuable lessons from many industry veterans who are sharing their many years of learning with us about sales, marketing, management, finance, entrepreneurship, VC, etc. Believe me, I'm a stronger believer in learning from doing it, as I'm currently building a business while in school. However, the learning and mentoring I receive is phenomenal to complement this and the network is extremely valuable.
The stuff you learn in business is more supplemental material for the stuff you learn in the more hard sciences like engineering. You may have built the best product, but without marketing, accounting, and operations, the product still might not succeed in the market.
With that said, I think business school courses should be taken on the side to the primary engineering courses as that provides the most well rounded education.
With that said, I think business school courses should be taken on the side to the primary engineering courses as that provides the most well rounded education.
I agree that it is somewhat useful to have these ancillary classes such as marketing, finance which would complement well with a degree in engineering i.e. computer science, materials science, biomedical etc.
Do programmers/engineers have an inferiority complex vs. Management/MBA types? I don't see many articles on HN bashing sales professions advising youngsters not to go to trade school . . .
Probably not. There have just been lots of bad MBAs in the last couple years that make clueless business decisions, and we've probably suffered under the hands of one at one time or another. Like asking to measure productivity in the number of lines of code. Sure, it might seem like it makes sense, but it'll soon be apparent it doesn't if you've tried to code at all, even just a little bit.
Having a business sense is great. But when you get MBAs that think that's all there is, it makes for bad business decisions that engineers have suffered under. Having some grasp of the actual nature of the business that you're in will go a long way.
Having a business sense is great. But when you get MBAs that think that's all there is, it makes for bad business decisions that engineers have suffered under. Having some grasp of the actual nature of the business that you're in will go a long way.
I voted you up, but you made one mistake; it should have "MBAs in the last couple of decades that made clueless business decisions". I have been reading almost identical complaints about the lack of real value in the MBA since the early 1990s.
Thanks, but I haven't lived long enough to see MBAs in the 90's. I've only started working in the 2000's.
I've heard that was the case, but I never looked into what happened in the 90's. Thanks for the heads up.
I've heard that was the case, but I never looked into what happened in the 90's. Thanks for the heads up.
I think a lot of us just fail to see how much value actually gets created by "MBA types". When you're used to seeing really small companies make really big exits, the corporate world can start to seem like so much paper shuffling.
If you're a smart, ambitious twentysomething, there are two obvious routes. You can get an MBA, work your way up the ladder via a series of safe but stressful jobs and maybe become a VP by the time you're forty. Or you can study engineering, found a startup with a friend, have a whale of a time and have a decent shot at becoming financially independent within a couple of years. If you're young and have nothing much to lose, it seems like a no-brainer to me.
If you're a smart, ambitious twentysomething, there are two obvious routes. You can get an MBA, work your way up the ladder via a series of safe but stressful jobs and maybe become a VP by the time you're forty. Or you can study engineering, found a startup with a friend, have a whale of a time and have a decent shot at becoming financially independent within a couple of years. If you're young and have nothing much to lose, it seems like a no-brainer to me.
I would say it's more like an intelectual superiority complex :)
Polymorphic business/management = bad idea that has aged even worse.
Coming from an engineering background, I sat in on an entrepreneurship class at UChicago Booth and I was totally blown away.
The angle was completely different. The previous class the students were all given the details about hypothetical ventures with some background on the market and they were asked to say whether they would invest or not invest should such a proposal cross their desk.
Then the class I was in, the big twist was that a lot of the ventures were real, and the founders were there that day.
The experience of being there when a room full of really bright and really accomplished kids learned that the company that 9/10 had passed on became a multi-million dollar success was priceless (and vice-versa). The message was unmistakeable.
Regarding the student body: I struck up a conversation with an enrolled student next to me, and it turns out the guy was one of the first 10 employees at ICQ. Pretty cool.
Take which anecdote (mine or the author's) you will. Also consider that the author's program was an undergraduate program and try to remember how experienced or useful you were at 18-21.