Rodney Dangerfield's First Economics Class

I discuss (1) The Article. (2) An MBA. (3) Professional Education. (4) Business. (1) The Article. The author seems angry about MBA programs, and he doesn't support his claims with solid data. (2) An MBA. If an MBA didn't take quite a lot of time and money and, possibly, opportunity cost , then, sure, get an MBA. If someone has a clear objective where an MBA is important, then maybe get one. If someone wants to be in business but really has no significant background in business from family or experience and, say, didn't major in business as an undergraduate, then maybe get an MBA. Some of what is taught in some MBA programs is not easy to learn from experience or independent study and might be useful later in business. Examples include optimization (e.g., linear programming), statistics (random variables, distributions, expectation, variance, independence, central limit theorem, law of large numbers, conditioning, hypothesis tests, confidence intervals, the general linear model), an overview of information systems (likely not worthwhile for readers of Hacker News!), accounting, mathematics of finance (e.g., Black-Scholes), business law, organizational behavior. (3) Professional Education. I never wanted to be a college prof but, due to some strange circumstances, for a while was a prof in one of the better MBA programs. I concentrated on optimization and computing. Since I was in such a program, I wanted to try to do something useful. So, I tried to offer professional educatio

"Many MBAs may come out of school wanting to start another Facebook, but they do have a purpose in life-" ... Actually, I'm not so sure. It's my experience that the business types that learned by the seat of their pants are much more likely to succeed than MBAs (although maybe the MBAs would be better at understanding why they failed?) It reminds me of Rodney Dangerfield in "Back To School" - [VIDEO] . Notice that everyone's taking notes on his comments?

This nails the issue with creating any kind of hardware. I’ve worked for hardware developers for most of my career, and have seen these types of challenges play out. Frankly, hardware problems are hard . The laws of physics are non-negotiable, and doing what we assume to be simple tasks at scale can be crazy difficult. Solving a problem in a lab is not the same as making it at scale. That’s why you keep reading these stories about major lab discoveries that never seem to actually materialize in product. Us software developers get used to being able to write some code, or license a library, and the problem is solved. Scale isn’t really an issue for us. If we can do it on our laptop, then we can push out our product to millions, almost overnight. Hardware is quite a different world. We need to tool up factories, train assemblers, set up suppliers and transportation networks, negotiate dozens of contracts; even for simple projects, resolve regulatory issues (which can be quite intimidating, depending on the industry and market), establish distribution channels and create packaging. Some of these are reflected in the software world, but at a much easier-to-manage level. Also, with software, failure usually doesn’t cost as much as it does with hardware. It’s a lot easier to pick ourselves up, dust off our lapels, and try again. Iteration is relatively easy. One of my favorite scenes: [VIDEO]

I have no opinions on the American industry, but I have known folks that have run local (NY) construction companies. They have all said that you need to deal with the wiseguys. They also have told me that they are nothing like what TV makes them out to be. Sort of like the famous "widgets" scene in Back to School [0]. I can tell you that the Japanese (at least in Tokyo) construction industry is awesome . They build incredibly ambitous and robust buildings, in a really short time. I traveled to Tokyo regularly, for 20+ years. I tended to stay in the same hotel. I remember looking out my window one year, and seeing a big field. The next year, it was a big hole in the ground. The next year, it was a 30-story skyscraper; fully occupied. [0] [VIDEO]