Hacker News Reader

Comment by smashah | Hacker News Reader

In an ideal world you're right. However, points 4 & 5 are the limiting factors.

The reason why elite MBAs make sure to ensure the success of each other is to make sure they're also given the leg up when looking for opportunities.

If a Oxbridge MBA judges a compatriot solely on merits and doesn't extend an opportunity then it cheapens their own value.

Perpetuating the privilege is the point. It's the only reason why I would do an MBA - for the blatant, proud and culturally accepted nepotistic advantage.

View on HN

> Perpetuating the privilege is the point.

Agreed.

And it's not just MBA programs either. People hire who they're familiar with, and who's in their general proximity. SV companies hire heavily from elite California based scools, because often that's where the founders and other top execs went.

London startups are the same. Oxford, Cambridge, and Imperial grads, everywhere.

Few years ago, when I was more in the scene, I met one of these guys and he told me he was pitching "Uber for Umbrellas" to VCs. Then I got into antler... Let's just say I've become cynical.

Umbrellas.. like umbrella companies?

Perpetuating privilege is now the #1 reason I will avoid these people in the future.

This cuts both ways. When you have equal candidates and one has an elite MBA, you can safely assume the MBA got there because of more nepotism and the non-MBA is the more valuable pick.

==you can safely assume the MBA got there because of more nepotism and the non-MBA is the more valuable pick.==

Based on what? Cynicism?

This is a theme in Taleb's work. He would say that only suckers choose the MBA in this hypothetical, since the MBA (and their network) is optimizing for projecting an image of competence, whereas the non-MBA actually had to have competence to get where they are. https://medium.com/incerto/surgeons-should-notlook-like-surg...

Interesting argument

It feels like flipping the initial assumption upside down in order to make a new assumption that's just as wrong, but in the opposite direction.

They should be judged on how they perform in the job interview.

I misspoke. You shouldn't "safely assume." What I mean is that all-else-equal, it's some extra information to go on for a candidate. That they might have gotten an extra boost from nepotism to their current position equivalent to the other person, and that if you had to pick between candidates, the MBA had an X% chance of not quite being as good as the other.

Yes, it's somewhat like "flipping the initial assumption upside down", but really it's just accounting for there being the opposite boost in the first place.

Candidates aren't solely judged on interview performance. Again, if things are extremely close, you'll have to include other data like career or education history to make the most informed choice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com