Also, a lot of people have endured "elite" MBA's entering the workplace into positions of seniority with no prior experience and exactly the results you might expect under the circumstances.

I haven't seen much evidence to the contrary, either. All I see is anecdotes from both sides, so I'll give MBAs the benefit of the doubt. Speaking for myself, I am an entirely different person after completing my MBA. I've become an analytical thinker to a fault and maintain my soft skills. Learned a metric shit ton of corporate finance, business strategy and decent macroeconomics.

> Also, a lot of people have endured "elite" MBA's entering the workplace into positions of seniority with no prior experience and exactly the results you might expect under the circumstances.

Shitty people exist everywhere. You don't have the counterfactual to know if those bosses would be even worse without an MBA. Seems to me like that's more of an issue with HR hiring processes than with the intrinsic values of a rigorous MBA program.

Not at all what I was saying, but since you brought it up: MBA or not, I'd expect the outcome of someone with zero real-world experience being elevated to a position of making executive decisions would be universally shite.

Yes, it's entirely to do with HR processes, but nonetheless the reason MBA programs exist at all is because they offer students the outcomes that they do - outcomes that are entirely unwarranted based on any evidence that currently exists.

Where do you get the notion that MBAs have zero real world experience? That is factually incorrect.

"Actually, 40 Years Of Data Show The MBA Effectively Does Nothing -- It Has No Impact" - Business Insider

https://www.economist.com/whichmba/nothing-special-mbas-are-...

MBAs are no longer prized by employers - The Economist

There's a lot more links like that on Google, I'll leave it to the reader to find them. That said, I found this one interesting:

Https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2018/mar/19/why-the-mb...

It's an article in the Guardian that, to give the tldr version, suggests that MBAs retain usefulness for getting jobs, but with no evidence of impact on capability.

What does that have to do with MBA's? The tech industry is littered with folks that look good on paper and can be plugged into some technocratic niche but have little real-world experience.

> Why, that seems like a rather silly thing to give the benefit of the doubt on. Hiring someone into a high responsibility role based on education rather than experience and proven ability. I don't see why you would do that...

Who said they are hired on education _rather than_ experience and proven ability? It's not like MBAs are 18-year-olds with no experience. As I've said elsewhere, you need to have at least 3-5 years of _great_ work experience to land a spot at top MBAs. I was promoted every year for 3 years in a row in one of my homecountry's top 5 largest firms and was about to be promoted to manager when I went to my MBA. The same is true of a lot of MBA graduates. And those who were not managers in the traditional sense displayed their leadership abilities elsewhere, such as the many veterans that join MBA programs.

> ah.

Great ad hominem. Go read up on HN's guidelines, please: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You mean like almost all other jobs out there?

Because foreign born people can't be rich?

What income percentiles are Harvard MBA students coming from?

I don't know about Harvard MBA students, I didn't go there. But you can go ahead and google each school's class profile. Maybe that info is out there.

I don't need a plurality of data to counter his claim that MBA's are "exclusively" for rich smart kids.

Originally MBA's where for 30 year olds on a fast track at big companies.