????無論是否公平，工商管理碩士（MBA）學位不值得去讀的觀點正在迅速演變成一種共識。有些人的利益跟MBA的未來息息相關，因此，他們就像抓住救命稻草那樣拼命進行反駁并不讓人覺得意外。

????上個月底，商學院教授斯科特?羅斯坦撰文替MBA叫屈。他的論據是，如果照片分享網站Snapchat首席執行官埃文?斯皮格爾從斯坦福（Stanford）大學畢業后再拿個MBA學位，他現在的境況就會好得多，他就能更好地評估那些曾經擺在他面前、最終卻沒能打動他的那些機會，比如去年秋天Facebook 公司30億美元的收購報價被斯皮格爾一口回絕。隨后不久，Snapchat進行了一輪融資，籌集了5000萬美元資金，但對這家公司的估值卻降到了20億美元。

????羅斯坦寫道：

????創始人埃文?斯皮格爾（在斯坦福大學獲得學士學位）想繼續持有多數股權，雖然這很容易理解，但在Snapchat至今仍無收入的情況下，讓10億美元從自己的手邊溜走仍然讓許許多多的人感到意外（當然，判斷斯皮格爾是否得到了團購網站Groupon的青睞還為時尚早）。收購談判包含了很多博弈理論，但如果了解分析和估值背后的科學，就能在掌握更多信息的情況下做出決定。

????也就是說，Snapchat目前還沒有收入，外界也沒有聽說它在創收方面有什么計劃。這家公司是值30億美元，還是只值20億美元呢？或者1000億美元？大家在這方面的猜測和斯皮格爾并無高下之別，羅斯坦也是一樣。但羅斯坦認為，估值“科學”能為斯皮格爾提供答案，還能幫助他決定，到底應該考慮哪些收購建議，拒絕哪些。羅斯坦贊賞了一番組成MBA課程主體的現實世界案例分析之后，舉了一個非現實事例，說的是一位擁有MBA學位的初創型企業CEO通過對收購建議進行數據分析賺了很大一筆錢。

????羅斯坦在文章中說：“所有初創型企業的核心都是它的價值，而構建這個核心的基礎是一系列金融原理和指標（產生現金流的情況、盈利、銷售額等），而不是情感。掌握這些基本商業原理能讓一位創業者用腦子、而不是用心來做決定。”

????在某種程度上，或者說對有現金流、盈利和銷售額等要素的公司來說，情況確實如此。但就Snapchat而言，除了“等”這個要素，其他東西它一樣也沒有。這家公司有的只是數百萬虛度光陰的青少年相互發送的幾百萬轉瞬即逝的照片和信息，而且還不知道有多少討厭的家伙給別人發了不知道多少張惡心的自拍照。因為腦子里沒概念，斯皮格爾能做的就只有跟著感覺走，情況就是這樣。

????不過，肯定有更好的例子，比如有具體收入和切實經營計劃、進而可以正兒八經地展開分析的初創公司？這樣的企業當然存在。但對MBA不利的一項依據是，許多攻讀MBA的學生在本科階段就已經掌握了所有獲得MBA學位需要了解的知識——羅斯坦對這一點并沒有提出反對意見。對于希望成為金融顧問、投資者或者分析師的人，MBA也許有價值【但注冊金融分析師（CFA）可能要好得多】。但在美國商業史上，無論是最近還是很久以前，有一種情況俯仰皆是，那就是，很少或者根本沒有接受過正規商業培訓的企業主憑借絕妙的主意或者堅持不懈，最終取得了巨大成功。這些年輕的創業者都沒有受過多少科班培訓，但他們都聘請了經驗豐富的管理者來經營自己的公司。在這方面，人們馬上就會想到谷歌（Google）、Facebook和雅虎（Yahoo）。如果愿意，斯皮格爾也可以這樣做。

????The argument that it’s not worth it to pursue an MBAis fast transforming into a truism, whether fairly or not. So it’s no surprise to see some desperate straw-grasping from people who have a stake in the degree’s future.

????On Monday, Scott Rostan, a business professor, offered an MBA apologia resting on the idea that if Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel had only earned an MBA after graduating from Stanford, he’d be in a much better position today. He’d be more able to evaluate the insensible deals being thrust at him, such as Facebook’s $3 billion offer last fall, which Spiegel rejected. Soon after, the company was valued at $2 billion after a $50 million financing round.

????Rostan wrote:

????While it’s easy to understand why founder Evan Spiegel (holder of an undergraduate degree from Stanford University) wanted to retain majority ownership, passing up that additional $1 billion when Snapchat currently has no revenue surprised a lot of people. (Of course, it’s too early to tell whether Spiegel pulled a Groupon.) Negotiations for an acquisition involve lots of game theory, but understanding the science behind the analysis and valuation can promote better-informed decisions.

????So Snapchat has no revenues and no known plans for how it will ever draw any revenues. Is it worth $3 billion, or only $2 billion? Or is it worth, perhaps, $0 billion? Or $100 billion? Your guess is as good as Spiegel’s. Or Rostan’s. But Rostan thinks that the “science” of valuation would supply Spiegel with the answers and help him decide which offers to consider and which to reject. After extolling the benefits of the real-world case studies that make up much of the MBA curricula, Rostan offers no real-world examples of an MBA-holding CEO of a startup getting a great deal for him- or herself after running offers through spreadsheet analyses.

????Rostan writes that, “at the core of any startup is its value, which is based on a set of financial principles and metrics (cash-flow generation, earnings, sales, etc.), rather than an emotional feeling. Understanding these basic business principles allows an entrepreneur to make decisions with his head rather than his heart.”

????And that’s true, to a point, for companies that have cash flow, earnings, sales, and “etc.” But Snapchat doesn’t have any of those things, unless the “etc.,” comprises millions of time-wasting teenagers sending millions of vaporous photos and messages to each other, and who knows how many creeps sending who knows how many distasteful selfies. In the absence of information for his brain, all Spiegel has to go on is his heart, such as it is.

????But surely there are better examples — startups with measurable revenues and solid business plans that lend themselves to formal analysis? Of course there are. But one of the arguments against MBAs — not addressed by Rostan — is that many students learn all they need to know about this stuff as undergrads. If you want to be a financial advisor, investor, or analyst, maybe an MBA will be valuable to you. (Or maybe a CFA would be far, far better.) But American business history, both recent and long past, is filled with stories of owners with little or no formal business training either getting great deals for their companies or holding on to them and managing them to great success. And all kinds of young owners without much formal training have hired experienced executives to manage their companies. Google GOOG -0.34% , Facebook FB -0.46% , and Yahoo YHOO 2.57% come immediately to mind. Spiegel could do the same if he wanted.