[stcredzero]

I've seems criticism of the idea that an MBA makes you ready to manage anything, without any particular domain knowledge.

Sort of the same problem as being ready to program anything, without any particular domain knowledge.

[munchbunny]

I'm glad you brought this point up, because in both cases it comes down to having the humility to understand your general skills aren't very useful without specialized knowledge.

I think software development is less guilty of this, because the usual refrain is "if they're good, they can learn the specific stuff on the job." So the industry (generalizing here) might not always hire for expertise, but it does clearly value having it long term.

On the other hand, MBA's were invented with the idea of "general management" as a career. Sometimes it works, often it doesn't. Even in the elite business schools I've spent time around, I don't often see a culture of valuing expertise. The MBA's I've met who did have domain/discipline expertise either already had it going into their MBA program, or specifically sought out optional classes for it.

All of that said, if you pay attention, MBA usually have a lot to offer in teaching soft skills. I've seen Harvard Business School's curriculum, and I genuinely believe that classes to teach communication and negotiation should be undergraduate core requirements rather than attached to an expensive secondary degree. I wouldn't have paid HBS's asking rate for that kind of training, but if I had that in undergrad, I would have been much more effective coming out of college.

[rhizome]

I think software development is less guilty of this, because the usual refrain is "if they're good, they can learn the specific stuff on the job." So the industry (generalizing here) might not always hire for expertise, but it does clearly value having it long term.

I think this discounts how similar most of the code written at different companies is, the nuances determined by business rules that are established elsewhere in the org chart.

[munchbunny]

I think that depends on how you're looking at the problem. College hires, for example, don't usually come into the industry having clear Frontend/Backend differentiation, but they will probably pick one path (or have it picked for them) on the job.

On the topic of business rules though: I don't think it's just business rules. As engineers, we're much better at our jobs when we can internalize the customer mindset, and that takes time. I recently switched industries, and my ability to make architectural decisions is noticeably weaker because I don't have the long view of my problem domain yet. Some PM's like to think that they have that all covered (in my experience, that happens about 50-75% of the time), but even technical PM's don't spend that much time thinking about the architecture, so in my experience it still falls on the engineer to spend some time thinking about the what/why and not just the how.

I think that applies to MBA's too. Business often look pretty similar, but technical and industry expertise makes all the difference.

[datavirtue]

So true. I'm a data engineer but I have to understand the customer's problem so I end up getting trained on the specifics of certain engineering problems related to jet engines and I have to study technical manuals so that I know what parts and sensors are producing certain data and why under an array of conditions. I could get my job done without learning all that but it would slow everything down and I would generally be a pain in everyone's ass.

[airstrike]

> I genuinely believe that classes to teach communication and negotiation should be undergraduate core requirements

It's generally hard to absorb the full value of classes like these in undergrad without having any real life experience so to speak. That's why the top MBAs require applicants to have at least 3+ years of a solid career to help them achieve the full value of the courses they will take