Elite MBAs and Wealth
17 comments
": the idea of Silicon Valley has spread so far that it's now seen as the way for technology people to get rich. Hence, the industry is flooded with technology people. So, if there's type of startup 1), which focuses more on pure technical skill, and type of startup 2), which focuses more on social skills and deal-making ability, it's probably going to be a lot harder to make money doing type of startup 1), because there's so much more competition. Hence, the most successful people tend to be people like Sam Altman, who is a good programmer, but who also does "businessy" things that a lot of hackers wouldn't like, like doing deals with cell phone company executives."
All of which has nothing to do with an elite MBA. Does Sam Altman have an elite MBA? let's check
From Wikipedia
"Loopt was founded during Altman's sophomore year at Stanford University[2] where he studied computer science with a focus on security and machine learning. He helped build an autonomous helicopter navigation system."
Doesn't look like he was one of the people who would be happy taking business classes. Skills other than hacking may indeed be the future of becoming an X millionaire, but these hardly correlate to having "elite MBA" s which was what the first portion of your post was about (not to mention the title).
You ask, "What you really want to look at is what things are causing people to become successful, right at this moment. How does technology stack up?"
Better than having and "elite MBA" The ability to write code and understand customers , much more so than having an "elite mba".
An "elite mba" probably helps you become a business consultant or something corporat-ey more than become an entrepreneur building multi million dollar startups, which was the point of the portion of PG's essay you extracted. You set out to debunk it and didn't do so at all.
All of which has nothing to do with an elite MBA. Does Sam Altman have an elite MBA? let's check
From Wikipedia
"Loopt was founded during Altman's sophomore year at Stanford University[2] where he studied computer science with a focus on security and machine learning. He helped build an autonomous helicopter navigation system."
Doesn't look like he was one of the people who would be happy taking business classes. Skills other than hacking may indeed be the future of becoming an X millionaire, but these hardly correlate to having "elite MBA" s which was what the first portion of your post was about (not to mention the title).
You ask, "What you really want to look at is what things are causing people to become successful, right at this moment. How does technology stack up?"
Better than having and "elite MBA" The ability to write code and understand customers , much more so than having an "elite mba".
An "elite mba" probably helps you become a business consultant or something corporat-ey more than become an entrepreneur building multi million dollar startups, which was the point of the portion of PG's essay you extracted. You set out to debunk it and didn't do so at all.
"All of which has nothing to do with an elite MBA. Does Sam Altman have an elite MBA?"
Of course not. What I was saying was: suppose you accept that an MBA is more likely to make you a billionaire than going into technology startups, but you don't want to get an MBA because you wouldn't like it, and you're fine with the comparatively lower returns in the startup industry. In which case, I argue that you still shouldn't focus on programming skills (which was Paul Graham's suggestion), because other skills will probably help you more. This does assume that you are already a good programmer to begin with.
"The answer is still, the ability to write code and understand customers, much more so than having an "elite mba". An "elite mba" probably helps you become a business consultant or something corporatey."
I was talking about the world in general, not just the startup world. Being a partner at a management consulting firm and making seven figures is "successful" by most people's standards.
"become an entrepreneur building multi million dollar startups, which was the point of the portion of PG's essay you extracted. You set out to debunk it and didn't do so at all."
No, it wasn't. Paul Graham was making a point about being successful in general, not just being successful in startups. Read the quote:
"So if you want to invest two years in something that will help you succeed in business, the evidence suggests you'd do better to learn how to hack than get an MBA."
He's talking about business in general, not just startups, which is why he talks about MBA prevalence among all billionaires, not just those that made their fortune in startups. I agree that getting an MBA will help you very little in the startup world, but both me and PG agree on that.
Of course not. What I was saying was: suppose you accept that an MBA is more likely to make you a billionaire than going into technology startups, but you don't want to get an MBA because you wouldn't like it, and you're fine with the comparatively lower returns in the startup industry. In which case, I argue that you still shouldn't focus on programming skills (which was Paul Graham's suggestion), because other skills will probably help you more. This does assume that you are already a good programmer to begin with.
"The answer is still, the ability to write code and understand customers, much more so than having an "elite mba". An "elite mba" probably helps you become a business consultant or something corporatey."
I was talking about the world in general, not just the startup world. Being a partner at a management consulting firm and making seven figures is "successful" by most people's standards.
"become an entrepreneur building multi million dollar startups, which was the point of the portion of PG's essay you extracted. You set out to debunk it and didn't do so at all."
No, it wasn't. Paul Graham was making a point about being successful in general, not just being successful in startups. Read the quote:
"So if you want to invest two years in something that will help you succeed in business, the evidence suggests you'd do better to learn how to hack than get an MBA."
He's talking about business in general, not just startups, which is why he talks about MBA prevalence among all billionaires, not just those that made their fortune in startups. I agree that getting an MBA will help you very little in the startup world, but both me and PG agree on that.
"I argue that you still shouldn't focus on programming skills (which was Paul Graham's suggestion), because other skills will probably help you more. "
You don't have much of an argument yet. You are just stating this as a conclusion and it still has nothing to do with the title of your post ("elite mba") and neither does it debunk PG's point (learn to hack as opposed to trying for an elite MBA)
You don't have much of an argument yet. You are just stating this as a conclusion and it still has nothing to do with the title of your post ("elite mba") and neither does it debunk PG's point (learn to hack as opposed to trying for an elite MBA)
I was making a related point that I thought was interesting, not a direct rebuttal of PG's statement. I was rebutting the related claim "if you choose not to get an MBA and go into the startup industry, you should focus on improving your programming skill, even if you're already a pretty good programmer".
"out of the self-made billionaires, 7 out of 32, or 22%, have MBAs from a top business school. Those aren't bad odds."
Correlation vs. causation. Enough said.
Correlation vs. causation. Enough said.
There's certainly some element of correlation in there, but that doesn't mean that there's no causation. Going to an Ivy League school is partly correlation and partly causation. So is getting a Ph.D. from a top university, if you're going into academia. Why should business school be different?
I should also note that this point applies equally well to PG's original argument. What if it's purely correlation- that is, what if "programming IQ" and "business IQ" just correlate really well, so that lots of top businessmen are also top programmers? In that case, it would be relatively useless to learn programming.
I should also note that this point applies equally well to PG's original argument. What if it's purely correlation- that is, what if "programming IQ" and "business IQ" just correlate really well, so that lots of top businessmen are also top programmers? In that case, it would be relatively useless to learn programming.
Since the data points are solely about extreme wealth and Elite MBAs, the only thing that can be proven is some degree of correlation between the two. What you have is insufficient (by a lot) to prove causation.
If your thesis is that the Elite MBA led to the extreme wealth, you have to look at the volumes of Elite MBAs out there. HBS alone turns out 1000 a year. Only a small % of them get to extreme wealth (going back to your point that a few hundred million doesn't count).
As someone else noted, an Elite MBA is a worthwhile investment as a stamp of approval. I have one of these, and I can speak from experience that it helps. Is it going to get me to extreme wealth? No.
If your thesis is that the Elite MBA led to the extreme wealth, you have to look at the volumes of Elite MBAs out there. HBS alone turns out 1000 a year. Only a small % of them get to extreme wealth (going back to your point that a few hundred million doesn't count).
As someone else noted, an Elite MBA is a worthwhile investment as a stamp of approval. I have one of these, and I can speak from experience that it helps. Is it going to get me to extreme wealth? No.
"Since the data points are solely about extreme wealth and Elite MBAs, the only thing that can be proven is some degree of correlation between the two. What you have is insufficient (by a lot) to prove causation."
The conventional wisdom is that there is causation as well as correlation. Everyone who goes to one of those elite MBA schools- and a lot of smart people do- goes because they believe in causation as well as correlation. The burden of proof is on you, to show that there is no causation, because the conventional wisdom says the exact opposite. See also:
"One who wishes to believe says, “Does the evidence permit me to believe?” One who wishes to disbelieve asks, “Does the evidence force me to believe?” Beware lest you place huge burdens of proof only on propositions you dislike, and then defend yourself by saying: “But it is good to be skeptical.” If you attend only to favorable evidence, picking and choosing from your gathered data, then the more data you gather, the less you know. If you are selective about which arguments you inspect for flaws, or how hard you inspect for flaws, then every flaw you learn how to detect makes you that much stupider." - http://yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues
"If your thesis is that the Elite MBA led to the extreme wealth, you have to look at the volumes of Elite MBAs out there. HBS alone turns out 1000 a year. Only a small % of them get to extreme wealth (going back to your point that a few hundred million doesn't count)."
Agreed, but that's a lot larger than the percentage of people who "learn how to hack" that go on to extreme wealth.
The conventional wisdom is that there is causation as well as correlation. Everyone who goes to one of those elite MBA schools- and a lot of smart people do- goes because they believe in causation as well as correlation. The burden of proof is on you, to show that there is no causation, because the conventional wisdom says the exact opposite. See also:
"One who wishes to believe says, “Does the evidence permit me to believe?” One who wishes to disbelieve asks, “Does the evidence force me to believe?” Beware lest you place huge burdens of proof only on propositions you dislike, and then defend yourself by saying: “But it is good to be skeptical.” If you attend only to favorable evidence, picking and choosing from your gathered data, then the more data you gather, the less you know. If you are selective about which arguments you inspect for flaws, or how hard you inspect for flaws, then every flaw you learn how to detect makes you that much stupider." - http://yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues
"If your thesis is that the Elite MBA led to the extreme wealth, you have to look at the volumes of Elite MBAs out there. HBS alone turns out 1000 a year. Only a small % of them get to extreme wealth (going back to your point that a few hundred million doesn't count)."
Agreed, but that's a lot larger than the percentage of people who "learn how to hack" that go on to extreme wealth.
No, not really "enough said". If a correlation is demonstrated between two events, then the probability of the observations being due to chance is low. Now, whether we conclude that "A caused B", "B caused A" or "something else altogether caused both A and B" is another matter. In this case, since the MBA likely precedes billionareship, we will rule out the possibility that the MBA was caused by the billions. As to which of the remaining two explanations is the case, I suspect that it is a mixture of the two.
Well I agree that after a certain point having no money will by no way improve living standards. In that view, having an MBA would be much better. We must accept that MBAs have more opportunity of making money.
Learn business. Don't get an MBA. Don't plan your life by trying to extrapolate from the Forbes 400.
I think your analysis is correct despite of all the self-congratulations that goes on here on Hacker News.
A couple caveats though; I think your definition of technology is too narrow, Web 2.0 is only one segment. The smartest people have moved on from IT which has already matured, and are working on green tech and genetic therapy where supposedly the next break through will come.
Also, even in software since money seems to be the biggest concern to you, consumer-centric software isn't where the money is made - it's just what appeals to be the most sexy to the young & naive. High frequency trading, e-discovery, medical informatics, Sarbones-Oxley compliance modules - there are tons of enterprise software companies in those fields make revenue more than most of the Web 2.0 startup's you listed.
Finally, I don't think what motivates programmers aren't necessarily the same that motivates a business-person. The best way I can describe this is by the musician and A&R example; there are some musician's who want to make it big and appeal to as many people as they can (i.e., Linkin Park), there are those complementary record labels who can help popular musicians by handling the business side and tailor their records to the focus groups. But there are also those musician's who care more about pushing than envelope than selling records, and if they are successful, like the early black blues & jazz musician's in the 40's and 30's, their influence will get heard in the 60's and 70's (ripped off by white musicians). Most people in IT operates on this sliding scale between craftsmen and A&R as well.
A couple caveats though; I think your definition of technology is too narrow, Web 2.0 is only one segment. The smartest people have moved on from IT which has already matured, and are working on green tech and genetic therapy where supposedly the next break through will come.
Also, even in software since money seems to be the biggest concern to you, consumer-centric software isn't where the money is made - it's just what appeals to be the most sexy to the young & naive. High frequency trading, e-discovery, medical informatics, Sarbones-Oxley compliance modules - there are tons of enterprise software companies in those fields make revenue more than most of the Web 2.0 startup's you listed.
Finally, I don't think what motivates programmers aren't necessarily the same that motivates a business-person. The best way I can describe this is by the musician and A&R example; there are some musician's who want to make it big and appeal to as many people as they can (i.e., Linkin Park), there are those complementary record labels who can help popular musicians by handling the business side and tailor their records to the focus groups. But there are also those musician's who care more about pushing than envelope than selling records, and if they are successful, like the early black blues & jazz musician's in the 40's and 30's, their influence will get heard in the 60's and 70's (ripped off by white musicians). Most people in IT operates on this sliding scale between craftsmen and A&R as well.
What exactly are you arguing for here? MBAs are certainly still a great investment for certain types of careers. If you want to seriously invest your life into consulting/investment banking (advisory and relationship side)/climbing the corpoate ladder, go for it (at one of the Top 10-20 schools, otherwise it's just a total waste). It's all about jumping through the hoops for the rest of your life then. And you will most probably get rich - speaking some million dollars here. There is an absolutely low probability of hitting it really big. You would have to start your own company/fund whatever for that, and most MBAs just don't ever do that. It's for the risk averse, mostly.
If you ever want to hit it really big, in the dozens or hundreds of millions, there is no other way than working for yourself and swinging for the fences. Silicon Valley or Hedge Fund, it's basically the same idea: Doubling down with everything you have and going for the extremely unlikely chance that you will be the one-in-a-million guy who gets the billion dollar payout.
If you ever want to hit it really big, in the dozens or hundreds of millions, there is no other way than working for yourself and swinging for the fences. Silicon Valley or Hedge Fund, it's basically the same idea: Doubling down with everything you have and going for the extremely unlikely chance that you will be the one-in-a-million guy who gets the billion dollar payout.
If you are looking for a way to get filthy rich, read Felix Dennis - http://sivers.org/book/HowToGetRich.
In the context of your post, the key is hiring the best hackers. The problem is that it seems identifying good hackers is hard. You have to be one yourself! (http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html)
But I suspect you could hire pretty good hackers, if not the best. Most people want the safety and comfort of a job, not wealth.
In Dennis's words:
Talent is indispensable, although it is always replaceable. Just remember the simple rules concerning talent : identify it, hire it, nurture it, reward it, protect it. And, when the time comes, fire it.
As you will have noticed, this is also a recipe to be a douchebag. But you will be one rich douchebag.
In the context of your post, the key is hiring the best hackers. The problem is that it seems identifying good hackers is hard. You have to be one yourself! (http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html)
But I suspect you could hire pretty good hackers, if not the best. Most people want the safety and comfort of a job, not wealth.
In Dennis's words:
Talent is indispensable, although it is always replaceable. Just remember the simple rules concerning talent : identify it, hire it, nurture it, reward it, protect it. And, when the time comes, fire it.
As you will have noticed, this is also a recipe to be a douchebag. But you will be one rich douchebag.
In order to get a job in this industry, you don't need knowledge, but mainly a degree. That said, people work for their degrees. There are only x billionaires out of 100million x person and y millionaires out of 10million y person.
Being a millionaire or a billionaire doesn't require an MBA, degree, high school... or any kind of education. It requires skills, luck, determination...
Nevertheless, people will still work toward getting one: 1 out of 5000 get rich, but 4500 out of 5000 get a job. MBA won't make you rich, but with little skills it will probably get you a decent job.
Being a millionaire or a billionaire doesn't require an MBA, degree, high school... or any kind of education. It requires skills, luck, determination...
Nevertheless, people will still work toward getting one: 1 out of 5000 get rich, but 4500 out of 5000 get a job. MBA won't make you rich, but with little skills it will probably get you a decent job.
Are you measuring the value of an MBA by the odds of becoming a billionaire (or even >$100M)? People achieve that level of success without regards to their education. Hard work, luck, tenacity, luck and connections are more important. I considered getting an MBA from a top 10 school. Basically, it offers the easiest path and best odds of earning $200+K/year and more flexibility in terms of careers (tech management, consulting, banking, etc.). Being a lawyer is grueling and boring, a doctor is grueling and takes a long time, and a tech entrepreneur is a crap shoot. I ended up in the tech path because I enjoy it and I don't care too much about money.
"Are you measuring the value of an MBA by the odds of becoming a billionaire (or even >$100M)?"
I admit that it's a quick-and-dirty metric, but that applies to PG's argument as well as mine.
"People achieve that level of success without regards to their education."
Some do, but the point is that education helps. Consider this list:
"One of the best ways to become a self-made billionaire is to attend an Ivy League school. 16 of the 52 self-made billionaires have Ivy League educations:
Warren Buffett, Columbia Bill Gates, Havard Carl Ichan, Princeton John Werner Kluge, Columbia Edward Crosby Johnson, III, Harvard Sumner Redstone (Viacom), Harvard Charles Bartlett Johnson, Yale Edward Lampert, Yale Steve Ballmer, Harvard Geroge B. Kaiser, Harvard Leonard Blavatnik, Columbia, Harvard Ronald Owen Perelman, Penn Michael Bloomberg, Havard Stephen Schwarzman, Yale, Harvard Eric Schmidt (Google), Princeton Jeff Bezos, Princeton
An additional six billionaires have near-Ivy quality education:
Sergey Brin, Stanford Larry Page, Stanford Philip H Knight, Stanford Charles Schwab, Stanford George Soros, London School of Economics James H Simons, MIT
The conclusion is clear. If you want to become a self-made billionaire, get the most prestigious educational credentials.
The best degree to get is an MBA. The following nine self-made billionaires have MBAs, and it's worth noting that eight out of the nine have an MBA from one of the nation's top three business schools: Harvard, Wharton, and Stanford.
Steve Ballmer, Harvard, Stanford MBA Geroge B. Kaiser, Harvard, Harvard MBA Philip H Knight, Stanford MBA Charles Egen (Echostar), Wake Forest University MBA Leonard Blavatnik, Columbia, Havard MBA Ronald Owen Perelman, Penn, Wharton MBA Michael Bloomberg, Havard MBA Charles Schwab, Stanford MBA Stephen Schwarzman, Yale, Harvard MBA"
I admit that it's a quick-and-dirty metric, but that applies to PG's argument as well as mine.
"People achieve that level of success without regards to their education."
Some do, but the point is that education helps. Consider this list:
"One of the best ways to become a self-made billionaire is to attend an Ivy League school. 16 of the 52 self-made billionaires have Ivy League educations:
Warren Buffett, Columbia Bill Gates, Havard Carl Ichan, Princeton John Werner Kluge, Columbia Edward Crosby Johnson, III, Harvard Sumner Redstone (Viacom), Harvard Charles Bartlett Johnson, Yale Edward Lampert, Yale Steve Ballmer, Harvard Geroge B. Kaiser, Harvard Leonard Blavatnik, Columbia, Harvard Ronald Owen Perelman, Penn Michael Bloomberg, Havard Stephen Schwarzman, Yale, Harvard Eric Schmidt (Google), Princeton Jeff Bezos, Princeton
An additional six billionaires have near-Ivy quality education:
Sergey Brin, Stanford Larry Page, Stanford Philip H Knight, Stanford Charles Schwab, Stanford George Soros, London School of Economics James H Simons, MIT
The conclusion is clear. If you want to become a self-made billionaire, get the most prestigious educational credentials.
The best degree to get is an MBA. The following nine self-made billionaires have MBAs, and it's worth noting that eight out of the nine have an MBA from one of the nation's top three business schools: Harvard, Wharton, and Stanford.
Steve Ballmer, Harvard, Stanford MBA Geroge B. Kaiser, Harvard, Harvard MBA Philip H Knight, Stanford MBA Charles Egen (Echostar), Wake Forest University MBA Leonard Blavatnik, Columbia, Havard MBA Ronald Owen Perelman, Penn, Wharton MBA Michael Bloomberg, Havard MBA Charles Schwab, Stanford MBA Stephen Schwarzman, Yale, Harvard MBA"
I will argue that this is, nowadays, complete nonsense. It might well have been true if you were born early enough to start a company during the dot-com bubble, like Paul Graham was. But it is definitely no longer true.
If you look at the list of the top 50 wealthiest people in America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Forbes_400), you will indeed find a lot of technical people there. However, trying to succeed in the industry that has just made a whole bunch of people billionaires can be a sucker's game, because whatever market inefficiency those people exploited is probably gone by the time all of those people got rich enough for you to hear about them. It can be like trying to get rich off of real estate in 2008, or trying to get rich off of gold in 1981. Markets are anti-inductive (see http://lesswrong.com/lw/yv/markets_are_antiinductive/).
What you really want to look at is what things are causing people to become successful, right at this moment. How does technology stack up? Here is the list of the top 20 most visited websites in the US: http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/US. Of the ones that were founded after the Bubble:
- Facebook appears to be the only one which will give the founders a decent shot at becoming billionaires.
- YouTube was bought by Google for $1.6 billion- a nice amount, to be sure, but that's only a few hundred million per founder, not the billions that earlier founders got.
- Wikipedia is, of course, a nonprofit.
- Blogger was acquired by Google. The amount was undisclosed, but it was probably in the low-mid tens of millions range, a (comparative) pittance.
- MySpace was bought by Rupert Murdoch for $580 million, again leaving only a hundred million or so per founder.
- Twitter is an interesting case, but the large percentage of their users that are inactive makes me believe pretty strongly that they'll either burn out or sell out for a relatively low amount. I'd bet on that, if there's any way for me to short Twitter stock.
- LinkedIn has a fairly stable valuation of around $1B, again leaving a few hundred million per founder.
So, for whatever reason, the mechanism that allowed so many people to become billionaires by starting companies during the dot-com bubble and earlier appears to be mostly gone. On the other hand, there are few indications that an elite MBA is losing its value, because it's not tied to any one industry: if the coal industry or the drug industry or the computer industry went bust tomorrow, an MBA would still be a valuable asset. There are, as of now (2010), seven people with MBAs in the top 50 richest people in America. It is also important to consider that, out of those 50, 18 simply inherited their wealth; any idiot can become a billionaire by inheriting a billion dollars. So, out of the self-made billionaires, 7 out of 32, or 22%, have MBAs from a top business school. Those aren't bad odds.
Of course, there are matters to consider other than pure pursuit of the largest number of dollars. At a certain point, after all, having more money won't really improve your standard of living. A hundred million dollars should be enough to maintain any reasonable lifestyle. And there are certainly people here who would be very happy writing computer software and unhappy taking business classes.
So, what about becoming a "mere" centimillionaire? Well, I must admit that I don't have hard data here, but I suspect that you'll also do better trying to make a hundred million in startups by focusing on skills other than hacking. The reason is simple: the idea of Silicon Valley has spread so far that it's now seen as the way for technology people to get rich. Hence, the industry is flooded with technology people. So, if there's type of startup 1), which focuses more on pure technical skill, and type of startup 2), which focuses more on social skills and deal-making ability, it's probably going to be a lot harder to make money doing type of startup 1), because there's so much more competition. Hence, the most successful people tend to be people like Sam Altman, who is a good programmer, but who also does "businessy" things that a lot of hackers wouldn't like, like doing deals with cell phone company executives.