Hacker News Reader

> why do so many in the valley do this to 'MBAs'.

Because every technical person has a story about:

  - "Idea people" telling them what to do and taking all the credit.
  - A non-technical manager setting unreasonable deadlines.
  - A non-technical manager trivializing a complex task. 
  - "Oh we'll just get him/her to write some code".
  - Being treated as if their talents are a commodity.
  - Being treated as if they cannot communicate like other humans.
  - Putting in blood, sweat, and tears into a project for little or no pay.
  - Studying like mad in college while everyone else seemed to be partying 
    (or this could just be me)

I think the correct term for those people are "douchebags"...not "MBAs".

A = douchebags

B = MBAs

B ⊆ A

Quite the startling fallacy there, even if disguised in symbols.

C = Some People

C ⊆ A

"This is also why I bristle when many in the Valley - PG included - keep disparaging non-technical people when they want to start a tech company."

I realize this is probably just semantics but I want to chime in on one little tidbit here. These guys didn't start a technology company in the sense that they needed technology innovation to succeed. They started an innovative cleaning business that uses some technology. They were building software in well trodden territory with a clear scope and execution path.

If you want to revolutionize web search, or be the first company to create an eCommerce store, or run a PaaS hosting business, then you probably have a tech company. If you're starting one of these, you damn well better have a nerd or two around. :)

I understand where you are going, but definitely semantics :)

I think the difference is legitimately more than semantics. There's a very real difference between starting something like Heroku and something like MyClean.

I'm not saying one is easier than the other. I'm just saying different expertise is required. MyClean sounds like a perfect company to be run by MBAs with technology pushed to the side. My gut feeling is the opposite for Heroku.

This equally true for a bunch of YC companies, like AirBnB and Dropbox, where the technical challenge is in dealing with scaling, but the actual innovation is in the product.

Dropbox is a very technically challenging product, so I don't know if that's the best example.

You're attacking a straw man here. We've funded lots of companies started by people who weren't programmers. In the YC FAQ, we recommend that such people find cofounders who are, if they can. But we don't insist even on that.

http://paulgraham.com/identity.html

Eventually Mike Scharf realized he needed some true technical expertise in house. Once we nail this component sky is the limit!

I never meant to attack you personally - it was more the sentiment that is often espoused in many comments & stories that appear on HN. You can even see some in this thread!

Some of that sentiment appear in your essays (and perhaps comments) - which people may take out of context.

I don't believe it's the MBA but rather the experience people have that make them able to do run a successful company.

MBAs aren't making you a good businessman anymore than studying philosophy is making you a good philosopher.

You still need the experience and the insights in order to create something like this.

But I wholeheartedly agree that you don't need to be a technical co-founder to do a company like this. However you do need someone to do it for you.

Well...my point was simply that there is no silver bullet other than a dogged will to get it done.

There are many brilliant programmers who will never build a sustainable business because they just don't have the will to get it done.

Likewise, there are many MBAs that will be middle management in LargeCo. all their lives for the same reason.

It has become Valley lore that u need to be a geek to build a successful business - when it is patently clear that is false. None of the AirBnB guys are geeks - they are designers!

I think it has become the lore that you need to be a geek to build a successful software business.

There are always exceptions.

With regards to MBA's is there any evidence that getting one makes people more sucessful in their careers?

I know it helps if you already have a job to climb the ladder, but I don't think there is much in an MBA that isn't covered in a book like "The Personal MBA" and isn't much you will learn the hard way that isn't covered by starting your own company or joining a startup.

But each to their own.

So...I guess I disagree with the premise. There is no single educational achievement that anyone can get that will single-handedly assure success in their career.

Have there been many success stories of people with MBAs? Yes. Have there been many success stories of people with law /medicine/accounting degrees? Yes. Do each of those guarantee success. Hells no.

Does an education guarantee success? No. The only thing that guarantees success is determination to be successful.

For me...my MBA taught me how the world works. It is surprising how few people understand how it truly works - yet they speak as if they know. For that single achievement alone, I would encourage everyone to get an MBA. That being said, does that mean that everyone that gets an MBA understands the world? No. I think it was more my finance/economics slant that did that.

Even still...does everybody with those slants achieve the results I did? Absolutely not.

So as I said.....it's not about the single data point that will make you a success - it's more than that. Survivor's bias (not sure if that is the correct term here) does lead people to link the two - i.e. the people that are more likely to be successful are the ones that are more likely to get a degree like that.

That being said...all people who get those degrees won't be "successful" and all successful people won't have those degrees.

For me...my MBA taught me how the world works. It is surprising how few people understand how it truly works - yet they speak as if they know. For that single achievement alone, I would encourage everyone to get an MBA.

That sounds like quite a claim. Can you shed some lights on how the world works from an MBA's perspective?

Well...I can't speak from an "MBA's" perspective, because there isn't 1 MBA perspective.

In terms of the way the world works, I can say that politicians are not in the business of running the world the way it should be run - they are in the business of politicking.

It has become fanciful in the last decade or so, to blame bankers, wall street, the 1%, capitalism, etc. for all the worlds ills - but that's just not the case.

Politicians (many who I support also) are just as guilty.

Here is 1 truism that no politician of a heavily indebted country will say - bond markets are dead right.

If they demand a higher yield on a country's debt - it isn't because there are some "nefarious speculators" trying to make bank off of the demise of the poor people in that country. It's because the stupid policymakers and politician s have fleeced the country, the affairs are not in order and in order for them (bond market investors) to lend to your country in the crappy state it is in, they charge more than they will charge to lend to the US Treasury, Germany, etc.

Likewise, if the bond markets are showing very low yields to America despite all the rhetoric of America's economy in shambles and the debt-to-GDP ratio being too high at 90% - clearly something else is at work and the situation is not as bad as it seems. Financial markets are forward looking indicators - and by all indications, as a general rule, when it comes to properly (and easily) communicating what is TRULY happening with the state's finances, they tend to be spot on.

The issue is that politicians hate it because bond markets show up their lies and untruths. So they blame 'wreckless speculators' and tax bankers. When half of the time, the investors that are wrecking their bond yields are not even BANKERS!

But...it sounds good in a newsbyte because people like to believe conspiracy stories about the wealthy bankers that are enslaving the masses with interest on debt.

The fact is, debt, equity financing & capitalism in general have been the best mechanisms for growth, poverty reduction and standard of living increases over the past few centuries.

Most things you hear politicians blame things on, are just simply scapegoats that people accept because they know no better.

Though I would disagree on the roles and power of politicians. I appreciate your inputs and some of them are quite insightful.

Except that American bond yields are low because the US is in a depression (a liquidity trap), not because "the situation is not as bad as it seems."

You're right though that debt, personal or sovereign, is not always bad.

Markets do not predict the future, they only represent the current state of mind about the future.

The fact that U.S. bond rates are so low does not mean that "something else is at work and the situation is not as bad as it seems." It just means that right now, folks can't think of a better place to put their money than in U.S. bonds. That mindset could change quickly if market conditions change. It was not that long ago that mortgage-backed securities were highly rated and well-funded.

Note: I'm not predicting doom for the U.S. here--just making the point that financial instruments really need to be evaluated by their business fundamentals, not how popular they are with other investors.

Furthermore, while the U.S. bond market is resistance to manipulation due to its size, smaller bond markets are not so protected. Here's one example:

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/July/11-at-890.html

> Markets do not predict the future, they only represent the current state of mind about the future.

I never said markets predict the future.

I said they are a good forward looking indicator. Major difference ;)

> The fact that U.S. bond rates are so low does not mean that "something else is at work and the situation is not as bad as it seems." It just means that right now, folks can't think of a better place to put their money than in U.S. bonds.

Well....implicit in my example was that what people tend to do is to complain about America's debt-to-GDP and then suggest some other asset class that investors should be putting their money in - like gold or w/e. Given the large gold sell off a few days ago, I am sure many of those guys are pissed.

Either way, my point was simply that as a general rule, the sovereign bond markets are usually good, forward looking indicators about the health of the economy of a country (relative to others). That's all I was saying - which is contrary to what politicians tell the people. But because they don't know any better, they accept what they hear as gospel because it fits a narrative in their head - bankers are stealing the wealth of the world.

I agree with you on the relative long-term safety of U.S. debt instruments, especially compared to a volatile commodity like gold.

I still disagree that bond prices are good forward looking indicators about the health of a national economy. From January to September 2009, yields on Greek bonds actually fell almost a point--by your criteria, seeming to indicate strengthening future prospects for the Greek economy. Instead we all know what happened next.

> I still disagree that bond prices are good forward looking indicators about the health of a national economy. From January to September 2009, yields on Greek bonds actually fell almost a point--by your criteria, seeming to indicate strengthening future prospects for the Greek economy. Instead we all know what happened next.

I would definitely not say that low eurobond yields on Greek debt is related to strengthening prospects in Greece. But rather an expected likelihood that Germany and the ECB would bailout Greece at terms favorable to bondholders.

"they are in the business of politicking."

This can in my experience as well be said about MBAs

"They are in the business of MBA'ing or business"

It's the title not the skills that gives you access to a higher salary.

Those MBAs I met that where great where already great at what they did and clearly didn't need one. They just thought they did.

My experience with titles what so ever is that people who earn them don't need them and people who need them don't earn them.

As of late, I tend to be very cautious of people who are mentioning their titles all the time.

You are missing the point here.

The claims of the MBA education is extraordinary. They claim that this will give you an edge on everyone else. It's not just a normal business education.

That's the measurement here.

With regards to how the world truly works.

The world truly works in many different ways depending on who you are, where you live and what you do.

Did you learn how africans on the savannah live? How un-educated people in the Bronx live? How people without jobs get social security. Did you learn what a person who get cancer thinks or what someone who get their family killed feels?

What you learned was how the world looks like through the eyes of an MBA, but you have not learned anything about the real world any more than someone living on the streets learn about the real world.

If anything you are abstracted far far away from reality.

Do you have an MBA? I'm not trying to sound like a dick- that's an honest question.

I do have an MBA and while I definitely think it was overpriced, the relationships with top faculty, in-depth case studies, and lasting friendships that I got out of it is definitely beyond what you will get from a book.

That said, experience is and always will be the best teacher. There is only so much you can get from relationships, classrooms, and personal accounts described on blogs. At some point you have to find out for yourself by doing. Doing is the hardest part and it constitutes about 99% of success, which is why so few people ever succeed or even try.

I know people who are not at all "technical" or "businessy" who run wildly successful small businesses because they just did and didn't know any better. Of course there were other things they had going for them- they were personable, had large networks of friends, etc., but my point is that there isn't a formula for success, but you do have to get shit done.

No I don't have an MBA and I wouldn't want one even if it was given to me.

But I did start a design agency built it to 60 people and ran it successfully for 6 years working for client all around the world of all different kind of sizes.

I have more case studies than I care for.

I also build friendships and a great great network of connections.

And I made money while doing it.

Business is simple (not easy)

That's all well and good but you sound a bit defensive. No need to be so touchy. I'm just wondering how you can speak to the value of something you've never experienced. Your opinion on this matter is about as useful as mine about building a design agency with a 60-person headcount.

You are absolutely right ThomPete, you need to either employ or contract someone technically sound to build a great software product. Mike Scharf is a great evaluator and hirer of people. This has helped our business tremendously.

This is such macho-induced cliche drivel that I feel like you're caricaturing one of these 'MBAs'.

First you try to belittle geeks for having been friendless, then call them ignorant. Then you break out the whole 'number one' nonsense, and even utilize a pound sign. And my favorite part is when you turn to the tautology of the 'unshakeable will to figure it out and get it done'.

Ha. Yeah, people who do can do X are the ones who can get X done. Hard to argue with that. And this group of 'MBAs', while they posses no uses that can actually be communicated or quantified, they have tons of je ne sais quoi to get it done with. And they'll fucking pwn the shit out of business with their endless supply of je ne sais quoi. And nerds? Ha, MBAs have more je ne sais quoi leaking out of them after slaying two 10s.

The point of dismissing these so-called 'MBAs' is not that a masters in business is some inherent flaw, but it's in calling that degree (or the concept of doing nothing, but 'being' awesome) an asset. It's in the type of person who does nothing, but wants to take from everyone else's pool of human capital and ride in their wake while pretending that the 'decisions' they make on the golf course while other employees are off actually working mean anything.

Again...sweeping generalizations...which you have proved just now.

When you come here and completely fulfill all of the other presumptions what are we supposed to think? You think saying nerds were friendless, then spouting off meaningless one-liners about it is a way to entice people into moving beyond generalizations?

If a nerd can't talk about generalizations about nerds...who can?

For a group of people (programmers) that presumably have been ostracized, shunned, and picked on in their formative years, why do so many in the valley do this to 'MBAs'.

It is hard to classify any group as being monolithic, but it has been my experience that an MBA really prepares you to be a good middle manager or consultant. Indeed, this is what MBA programs were originally designed to do and it still shows.

It also makes sense that middle managers would be the last people you'd want to hire at a startup (literally, middle managers are the last to get hired).

Of course, there are exceptions. A lot of exceptions in this case. If you have the startup bug, MBA or not, you'll start a company, but let's not pretend like this train of thought is completely unwarranted.

"This is also why I bristle when many in the Valley - PG included - keep disparaging non-technical people when they want to start a tech company."

"I wish we all, on HN (at the very least), would stop painting with a broad brush and bashing large swathes of people."

Pretty conflicting statements. Asking HN not to disparage people while disparaging people in Silicon valley himself.

If a non-technical founder wants to build a photo-sharing app, how would she/he even build a minimum viable product without learning how to code or getting a technical partner?

It depends on the business. Some ideas like MyClean don't need much technical skills to start.

It's pretty disappointing that this is the top comment on this thread.

I don't understand how a photo-shapring app would require more technical knowledge than MyClean.

The point is still valid though. People sit here acting as if moan-technical people can't understand what is fundamental a people problem (is there a market for this)?

A lot of startups might spend all the time in the world making the most elegant software in the world, but if nobody wants to use it it's game over.

Bad execution doesn't matter if the problem is important enough to them(think of all the people running around still doing things in buggy DOS software from 1996). But if I don't want to use your social network for cats, it's a lot harder to get people to care about your website than it is to hire motivated people to make your site better.

Craigslist is a great example of using (relatively) low-tech means to get things done. It used to be a mailing list. Shady download websites with 10000 popups and buggy captchas and timers also show that it's about the demand.

Of course if someone else is competing in the same domain as you, the best differentiator (after previous mind-share) is a good UX (lot easier to make with good software).

And if a technical guy wants to built a photo sharing app which also modifies the photos somehow without any idea of photography? It's hard for a single person to built a successfull product or company, simply due to a lack of skills. That's why you need partner, co-founders, employees and contractors.

What makes a good founder IMHO is the ability to see what kind of skills are currently missing. The next trick is to get these skills somehow.

I think a lot of the disparagement comes mainly from interactions many of us have with a lot of these types of individuals.

A lot of the time the "MBAs" place an overemphasis on the ideas themselves being more important than the ability to execute on them from a technical perspective (although i'd have to say that a lot of developers may have the reverse disposition)

I understand where it comes from - but that doesn't justify it.

The focus should be on the issue - i.e. people focusing on ideas and less on execution - rather than an archetype.

It's simple really:

Because people make the mistake of constant blanket statements:

Technical people say: "MBAs always suck."

Non-Technicals say: "Techies are incessant and snarky geeks."

One blanket statement results in the retort of another statement, and then group polarization takes effect. So by making this rant, you're just setting a precedent for Techies to be flamed at MBAs even more.

Thank you for the supportive comments Marcamillion. Mike Scharf hired me to offset his technical inefficiencies. He in turn is the type of entrepreneur and business visionary who is great to work with.

"why I bristle when many in the Valley - PG included - keep disparaging non-technical people when they want to start a tech company."

PG's outlook (if you are correct) is based on his background perhaps - this from his wikipedia page:

"Graham has a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy from Cornell University.... He then attended Harvard University, earning Master of Science (1988) and Doctor of Philosophy (1990) degrees in Applied Sciences with a specialization in computer science.... He has also studied painting at the Rhode Island School of Design and the Accademia di Belle Arti in Florence."

From this I can deduce that PG wasn't "business minded" in high school although maybe he did run some business on the side etc to make money (I don't know). But he wasn't interested enough in it to attend a business school as an undergraduate. If that had been the case instead of going to Cornell he might have chosen Wharton for undergraduate business. In Wharton UG (I graduated) most of the people - the majority of people that I met - knew that they wanted to be in business just like some people know growing up they want to be doctors. Only difference is those people can do something before college obviously nobody is going to practice medicine prior to training.

So I would suspect that PG's view of the world was based upon his ability to program and put together viaweb and without that programming skill (especially back then) viaweb probably wouldn't have happened. (Morris on the other hand, while a programmer, is a bit devious (worm) so that definitely is a quality that is helpful in business.

If you don't know what you're talking about, then why are you talking about it?

"Morris is devious for his worm, which is a quality helpful in business." You don't have any idea what Robert is like.

If I am wrong and I don't know what I'm talking about, then instead of saying "If you don't know what you're talking about, then why are you talking about it?" why don't you provide backup for your statement "you don't have any idea what Robert is like" which refutes the fact that I think someone who did what Morris did is "devious"?

I would make the same statement about Steve Jobs with regards to the blue boxes.

With respect to Morris, this statement (wikipedia) to me indicates he is "devious":

"According to its creator, the Morris worm was not written to cause damage, but to gauge the size of the Internet. However, the worm was released from MIT to disguise the fact that the worm originally came from Cornell."