<p>I am a research and consulting engineer who has been thinking of mba.
PE/VC seems to be one of the most desired (although highly selective) job for MBAs from tops schools. But, all PE/VC people i have met or observed look like the most paranoid, miserable, creatures who seem highly superficial and not very intellectually oriented at all.
I simply have no clue why top MBAs such as from HBS will ever take such jobs. I mean, think of it: as a VC you are really interacting mostly with 3-4 team members of yours working on deals every weekday. you may get to interact in a highly formal setting with people (whose money matters you handle), but thats pretty much it. It can get boring pretty quickly after an year or so. To continue any further in that career, you either have to be a total number cruncher desperate to make money with no taste for other things in life. i mean you are just handling money for other people thats it.</p>
<pre><code>I understand that you make money if you work your ass off for a few years and give up life. But does that sort of slavery fits in with the image of a top mba?
</code></pre>
<p>Can someone explain me what are these mbas thinking...</p>
<p>But maybe I'm just cynical. I believe half of the people do MBA for the money. You can make enough $$$ is PE/VC to retire after a few years. Just like many people go for MD and JD for the prestige and money. Of course, there's the other half who are in it to get more fulfillment in their careers.</p>
<p>It doesn't sound like you have a grasp at all on what VCs do. Among other things they get to listen to pitches from entrepreneurs in deciding where to put their money. What could be more interesting or intellectual than figuring out what they next big thing will be and who the best team to win the race to get there is? They also get to be hands on in the companies they invest in. Again, not many get to be a key player in many fascinating companies. And that's just the beginning. My very intellectual son is panting about his opportunity to intern with a VC firm this summer.</p>
<p>Private equity takes many forms, and depending on which you go for, again, there are challenges many highly intelligent people relish.</p>
<p>If you can't see what's interesting in these jobs, they're not for you. But brilliant people are doing them for more than just the bucks.</p>
<p>hmom5,
first let me go ahead and say that you are being simplistic and conferring more intellect to VC profession than I think it deserves. now let me tell you why and I can speak from personal experience.
I have graduate degree in comp sci from one of the most selective colleges anywhere. I have more than 5 yrs of hands on engg exp in Hitech (google-like companies), and I currently work in a startup.. and guess what the startup is funded by VC with many in the firm from harvard bschool. Now: I have worked closely over the years from engineers/comp sci guys like me from ivies, and I know many of them to be highly intellectual people. I look at my VCs and you know what they feel like: like a car salesman, except in a nice suit. Ok not may be car salesman, but they are no intellectuals.. Probably they can understand intellectuals but clearly they themselves are not. I know that they do listen to various entreprenurial pitches, but you know what, they are not looking for intellect in those pitches - they are looking for money in those pitches. They translate all the had work and intellectual thought process by a technical guy into a simple money accounting model, and if that makes them money, they get excited like a trader on the wall street. You are not going to tell me that the trader on the wall street is an intellectual, are you?
My main point is: a technical entrepreneur's first love is technology - he eventually makes millions not because he loved money to begin with. he loved technology and money followed. That is not true for a VC guy - I am pretty sure his first love is not technology. what is one single love of a VC/PE guy's? I dont know the answer and thats why I made the original post. I understand it can not be money alone, because if it were, that'd rather be traders or hedge fund managers or something like that. May be they are just confused and walk the line that everybody from top b schools walk..</p>
<p>Not everyone who goes into PE/VC is the same. Not everyone has the same reasons. Pretty much everyone who works does their job in part because of the compensation. This starts at the bottom of the barrel and runs all the way to the top. To imply that engineers don't care about the money and it just falls into their laps is ridiculous. In large, VC's are dependent on engineers (/inventors) for jobs AND VICE VERSA. To say that there isn't an intellectual component to most VC work just sounds condescending. There seems to be a distinct bias against VC's in your post, describing them almost as, "the money-men who cheapen the work of us engineers." Many of them are formerly of your engineering brethren.</p>
<p>I'll save you the effort of calling me out on my age. I'm a sophomore in college, age 20.</p>
<p>backtoschool, your tone sounds almost as if you have a personal vendetta against these folks. actually, many of those working at startups develop this sort of grudge because VCs can be hard people to work with.</p>
<p>do me a favor and look up the backgrounds of sequoia capital VCs. you'll see many former entrepreneurs, thought leaders, and intellectuals.</p>
<p>they can sometimes seem like money-grubbing investors, but only because they are so diversified and an inch deep in so many fields. this diversity is what draws so many top MBAs, and myself as an engineer, to the private equity and venture capital industry. you have the potential to shape economies and make huge impact with your investments and decisions, and you may work on solar cells one day and internet media the next.</p>
<p>this desire for variety and constant intellectual stimulation is not something that would be satisfied by wedding myself to an industry or specialization.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My main point is: a technical entrepreneur's first love is technology - he eventually makes millions not because he loved money to begin with
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your main point is absurd; much like your reasoning. You are forgetting the not so small fact that one of the most common routes to VC (by which I mean early stage VC, not PE/LBOs) is through start-ups. Many VCs have technical backgrounds themselves. This reminds me of a previous thread in which someone was arguing the naive claim that business exists to help society. It's clear that you do not understand the VC industry; it's also clear that you don't understand the PE industry; and it's also clear that you are expecting people to simply confirm your preconceived assumptions. In the end, however, maybe you are just confused. </p>
<p>
[quote]
May be they are just confused and walk the line that everybody from top b schools walk..
<p>Backtoschool, your background and start up experience is indeed impressive! I still think you're having a hard time understand the breadth of a VC's job and the incredible array of tasks they perform and the talent it takes to perform them well. Perhaps you can spend some real time on Sand Hill Road.</p>
<p>There is almost always a tension filled relationship between founders and their investors. Who wants to give up that much of their company? But they continue to do just that because they need the VCs for money and guidance.</p>
<p>And honestly, most intellectuals I know need more variety than working endlessly on one product for one company. That's why so many successful in that respect are a whole different animal than VCs. If that's the lens you see the world through, pursue that path!</p>
<p>Then again, what do I know as a Wharton grad with 30 years in banking and many, many peers who are VC's and founders of tech companies?</p>
<p>First, I am not sure if you fully read what I posted - i never claimed VCs dont have "any" intellectual component. Sure they do - deep enough to understand relevant business or technically general idea of what a PhD from MIT in parallel computing is saying, and wide enough to understand various such general technical ideas to identify good business opportunities. But "not" deep enough to fully understand even one of these PhD in CS from CMU/MIT.
The tone of my post may have seemed a little harsh only because I was trying to draw a line between two different kinds of people: intellectual engineers vs in my opinion, slightly-intellectual, VCs.
Second, I think there is a clear difference between an "intellectual" and "intellectual stimulation". Many ordinary folks may derive intellectual stimulation out of a general conversation about something new, something novel, something even as ordinary as travelling to a new place and enquiring about those new surroundings with the locals. Just because someone likes this every once in a while does not make him or her an intellectual. Calling someone an intellectual is a question of "depth" and not "breadth". An intellectual in any space will relish through and through conversation in depth about that space - be it a specific science or art.
If you want technicalities, you will find the term "intellectual" applied to people of the mould of paul krugman (economist), knuth (programming guru)...
You tell me the name of one VC whose name appears as an "intellectual" in reputable print media.. will you ever see something along the lines of "Mr John Doe who heads XYZ ventures is an intellectual" in such media. I guess not. On the other hand, in sciences and engineering, you do see this. There is a big gulf between having an intellectual bent, which I am sure many VCs do, and being an intellectual.
Third, I am also shocked by how some of the posters simply took one weak statement out of my post, and without even trying to understand my post went ahead with their rhetoric. Wildflower, my main point "is" valid: an engineer loves technology more deeply than a VC and that is the reason engineer is devoting more of his work life to technology related matters. A VC does love technology too along with other interests, such as business. You can say that VC (who were techies in their previous life) are in fact multidimenesional people unlike a techie who is unidimensional. What gives? That multi-dimensionality comes at the cost of depth of knowledge in technology.
All things being said, I am clearly generalizing and there are always anomalies. However, I think, generally, what I say above is true.</p>
<p>PS: hmom5: BTW I lived in bay area in fact very close to sand hill road. On the other hand, I have also worked very closely with thought leader faculty from CS depts in north east. Having peers in VC is not the same as being one herself/himself. The worst cases of ventures going downhill I have seen are when VCs almost take too much power to start running the company all by themselves. I do not blame them really - i think they have every right , its their money after all. All I am saying is that odds are that company is losing it when a VC becomes the CEO.
Just so I am not misunderstood, I do not have any vendetta against VCs or any profession for that matter. I am just trying to understand what a VC is passionate about? If you can authoritatively speak about it hopefully from personal experience, be my guest.</p>
<p>You're young and see it from the angle of being a start up employee so you don't yet know what you don't know.</p>
<p>But let's face it, the average engineer never had a hope in he** of becoming a VC, which is one reason why they're devoting their life to engineering.</p>
<p>So why do you think it is so many engineer founders of successful tech companies, who have already made many, many millions become VCs? To make more money or see how the unintellectual live?</p>
<p>Hint: perhaps they desire to spread their knowledge and apply their talents to more than one company to satisfy their broad intellectual interests.</p>
<p>P.S., in case you think I don't respect engineers, my oldest son is a CMU engineer in an MIT PhD program. He is no more intellectual than my children who want to be a VC and an investment banker however.</p>
<p>I know a guy who ran an large, international pump manufacturing company for many year and made a lot of money doing so. He stepped down in his mid-fifties and started a real estate development company and is constantly starting companies, franchising them, and moving on. These people intrigue me, not because of their technical mindset or know-how (of which this man has very little), but because of their business savvy. He's able to see opportunity in almost anything, and then he is able to exploit it.</p>
<p>Now, don't think "exploit" is a bad thing, exploit may make people money but it also creates franchises and banks, gives products to the people, and an outlet for technical prowess and creativity. Technicians and managers are the cogs in the machine, but that machine is of know benefit to anyone unless it is employed to create value to society and those who employ it. That is where VC/PE come in to play. It not only takes money to make money, it takes money to make everything.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They translate all the had work and intellectual thought process by a technical guy into a simple money accounting model, and if that makes them money, they get excited like a trader on the wall street. You are not going to tell me that the trader on the wall street is an intellectual, are you?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's what they are paid to do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My main point is: a technical entrepreneur's first love is technology - he eventually makes millions not because he loved money to begin with. he loved technology and money followed. That is not true for a VC guy - I am pretty sure his first love is not technology.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that's a huge assumption. Without financial backing many entrepreneurial ventures could never even happen. Saying that a VC guy doesn't appreciate or love the technology they invest in is like saying a football coach doesn't care about football because he's not playing the game. When I was a kid I always figured why play when you can coach, and why coach when you can own? I'm no football coach, because I just don't love it enough to be involved with it (though i do play fantasy football). Though I take the same view on the technology I work in, and yes love. I want to see it grow and benefit as many people as it can. What good is it to the world if inventors never leave their garage?</p>
<p>Possibly the most famous professor at Brown (granted, not Princeton where the real intellectuals research, though he himself is a Princeton grad). Intellectual: yes. Businessman: yes. Business teacher: yes. </p>
<p>This all comes down to a difference of opinion on what the word "intellectual" means, and I think that most of us disagree with the OP. He's entitled to his opinion, he clearly states his opinion- that "depth" is preferable to "breadth", which is all we can ask for, and now this thread can peacefully end.</p>
<p>I repeat when I say that the main purpose of my original post was getting education in VC psyche, as is clear from the title of the thread. Now, please let me respond to individual posts.</p>
<p>BK22889: I think you correctly recognized my statement that the definition of "intellectual" is key to the difference in opinion here. I fully agree with your example of a professor. I have immense respect for professors, my dad being one, and I think generally they do fit the definition of an intellectual very neatly.</p>
<p>Japher: I fully understand your post - as you rightly pointed out with the example of a football team, I think it all gets down to which side of the line one is on. would one rather be playing or coaching/owning? I personally respect people more who play and since I am so involved and passionate about playing, so may be at times I do not fully agree with the owner of the team. Does not mean I have no respect for the owner's business prowess.</p>
<p>the_prestige: As I said, I actually wanted get educated in what VCs really like.. I think the original message of my original post got "lost in translation".</p>
<p>hmom5: I think you may be right in saying it but the second statement of your last post is condescending. however, the vice versa is true too. Plus, average engineer is not every engineer, and average VC is not every VC. some people love their craft and their craft only and are brilliant at it; many immense engineering minds may have been good at many other things only if they wanted to do them, they chose not to. In any case, I wish your son good luck in getting the internship for VC that he wants. Thanks.</p>
<p>Back,it's not condescending, it's the simple truth. The average engineer goes to a state college and has average stats. That is not the description of a person who will ever have access to an elite VC job. Simple fact. The best students at the top schools have a difficult time breaking into VC.</p>
<p>The top students at MIT, Caltech and a few other schools will have a shot, but only if they have the interpersonal skills and other skill sets the VC's demand. And that's a very small percentage of engineers. Yet there is nary a VC on the planet who could not get an engineering degree or job.</p>
<p>Wildflower
“This reminds me of a previous thread in which someone was arguing the naive claim that business exists to help society. It's clear that you do not understand the VC industry; it's also clear that you don't understand the PE industry; and it's also clear that you are expecting people to simply confirm your preconceived assumptions.”</p>
<p>While it is your right to believe such questions are na</p>
<p>Look hmom5, I was being polite in stating that what you said "is" condescending even though it may be right.</p>
<h2>Following is your statement.</h2>
<h2>But let's face it, the average engineer never had a hope in he** of becoming a VC, which is one reason why they're devoting their life to engineering.</h2>
<p>You are pushing it when you say the above statement is not condescending while stating that VCs are somehow better than engineer - your post reeks of elitism. I do not wish to engage in unnecessary and fruitless debate with you because I really have to question your mindset. Example here: In one of my post, I mention PhD from CMU/MIT and in the next post you say that you have a engineer son from CMU doing PhD at, let me guess, MIT. what a coincidence!</p>
<p>What you call interpersonal skills, some people may call shallow or superficial.. At any rate, your idea of a good debate seem to be disrespecting people.. So please, with all due respect..as BK22889 wisely said , may this thread end peacefully.. Thanks much.</p>
<p>backtoschool, may i ask why you want to leave engineering then? your previous posts indicate, of all careers, a desire to switch to investment banking.</p>
<p>also, hmom's statements, while blunt, are simple facts. many VCs were near the top of their engineering classes and could easily have pursued depth in one particular field, but CHOSE instead to widely apply their skills. </p>
<p>it's understandable that you feel cornered by so many people questioning your viewpoints, but don't transfer the blame to others or invent some sort of "disrespect" that just isn't there. understandably, as an ambitious immigrant you're feeling conflicted on what the top people pursue here and how that clashes with your personal view of what is the most noble path. pursue what interests you, which clearly seems to be research-level CS (yet you want to do IB?), and don't worry about what others view as the most "intellectual" or "prestigious."</p>
<p>Call it elitism if you like, but I didn't make the rules. They are what they are. Only a small percent of the population will ever have access to elite jobs and being a VC is one of them.</p>
<p>And to be totally honest, my son got his undergrad degree from CMU because he was rejected by MIT and Caltech. Because he is tilting at elite jobs, he worked his butt off to get into grad school at MIT!</p>
<p>I am fully aware it's not PC to openly speak about elite jobs and who has a chance for them. For that reason I don't discuss these things at back to school night, church or the grocery store. But this is an anonymous message board where kids are trying to figure out the realities of education and the job market. I feel the best thing I can do is to be open and honest.</p>
<p>Feel free to end your participation in this or any debate, but if others what to explore the issues, why try to stop them?</p>