Joe Liemandt vs. the MBA: Why This Tech Billionaire Says Two Years Building Beats Two Years Studying

Billionaire challenges the MBA default

Liemandt’s comments on Codie Sanchez’s “Big Deal” podcast cut through years of polite debate on graduate business education. Asked directly whether ambitious young people should get an MBA, he answered with an unambiguous “no,” calling it an easy decision in his mind. In his view, the classroom offers some valuable relationships, but almost no business knowledge that comes close to the learning curve of building a company from scratch over the same period.​

For C-suite leaders and capital providers, his stance is more than personal preference. It highlights a widening divergence between the skills rewarded in corporate hierarchies and those required to create companies from nothing. The resulting question is no longer academic: in a world of abundant capital, constrained talent, and accelerating disruption, are boards and investors overpaying for credentials and underweighting raw operator experience?​

From Stanford dropout to software consolidator

Liemandt’s critique carries weight because it is grounded in his own trajectory. He left Stanford in 1989 to found Trilogy Software, which he scaled into a prominent enterprise software player with roughly $120 million in annual revenue at its peak. Trilogy spawned pcOrder.com during the dot-com era and launched “Trilogy University,” an internal boot camp that later influenced onboarding and training models at firms like Facebook and Google.​

He ultimately shifted his focus to ESW Capital, a private software acquisition firm built around buying underperforming software businesses and rebuilding them for long-term profitability. ESW has become known for its disciplined approach to operational turnarounds, recurring revenue optimization, and centralized management of acquired assets. For executives who prize cycle-tested operators, Liemandt exemplifies the archetype of a founder who learned by doing, then institutionalized those learnings into a repeatable M&A and operating model.​

“Put 100K on the line”: his financial logic

Liemandt’s argument is not just philosophical; it is capital‑allocation driven. He points to the six-figure price tag of an elite MBA and suggests that, for an aspiring entrepreneur, the same capital would be better deployed as startup equity rather than non-dischargeable student debt. In his framing, debt-financed tuition is a fixed claim on a future that may or may not materialize, while investing into a company—however risky—creates the possibility of asymmetric upside and direct learning.​

He also underscores that entrepreneurial skills, from validating a product to managing cash flow under stress, cannot be acquired passively. They require action: shipping a product before it feels perfect, hiring and firing in real time, and facing the consequences of pricing, positioning, and execution errors. For CEOs and boards overseeing internal venture studios or corporate innovation arms, his message is clear: no classroom simulation will substitute for putting real money and reputational capital into the market.​

The MBA skill gap: spreadsheets vs. reality

One of Liemandt’s sharpest critiques targets what he calls the “traditional MBA mindset.” He contrasts how MBAs and founders evaluate a flawed business plan or model. In his characterization, the MBA graduate is trained to identify the cell in the spreadsheet that does not work and, because of that flaw, reject the entire idea. The entrepreneur, by contrast, sees the same broken cell and asks how to re‑engineer it—and, if necessary, the surrounding assumptions—to make the idea work in reality.​

This difference is more than rhetorical flourish. It highlights a gap between optimization and creation that many boards already sense in their succession pipelines. Large organizations need disciplined allocators who can interrogate models, manage margins, and de‑risk projects, but disruptive value creation often requires leaders who are willing to live with incomplete information and still move. Liemandt’s argument, implicitly, is that MBA programs remain better at the former than the latter.​

The numbers say MBAs still win in corporate pay

Liemandt’s skepticism lands in a market where MBA compensation is not just resilient but expanding. The Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC) projected the median US MBA salary at about $125,000 in 2025, roughly $25,000 higher than experienced direct‑from‑industry hires. Other surveys show average starting packages for MBAs from top US programs often reaching or exceeding the mid‑$100,000s in base salary alone, especially in consulting, finance, and technology roles.​

At the apex, schools like Harvard Business School are reporting record outcomes. The HBS Class of 2025 posted a median base salary of approximately $184,500, with typical signing bonuses of $30,000 and substantial performance bonuses on top, pushing median total compensation into the low‑$200,000s. For executives designing leadership pipelines, the signal is straightforward: the MBA remains a powerful credential for corporate advancement, particularly into high‑compensation roles in private equity, investment banking, consulting, and technology strategy.​

Why MBAs still dominate the C-suite

Despite high costs and critiques from founders like Liemandt, MBA degrees retain significant signaling value in corporate leadership. Fortune and other business outlets repeatedly document that a substantial share—often estimated around 40%—of senior executives at large public companies hold MBAs. The degree acts as a shorthand for analytical rigor, exposure to finance and strategy, and an ability to navigate complex organizational environments.​

For boards and search committees, an MBA from a top program also functions as a proxy for selection and persistence. Admissions are competitive, the curriculum is demanding, and the alumni network offers access to capital, deals, and talent that can materially benefit the firm. That is why elite MBAs remain over‑represented in roles like CFO, COO, and divisional CEO, even as some of the world’s most iconic founders—Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Dell—built their empires without completing degrees.​

Founders without degrees vs. credentialed leaders

The deeper debate is not MBAs versus non‑MBAs; it is founders versus managers. Liemandt stands in a long line of high‑profile dropouts who turned contrarian decisions about education into outsized business success. In technology in particular, many of the most valuable companies were created by individuals who prioritized building over formal credentials, then later hired MBAs to help scale operations, structure capital, and manage complexity.​

That division of labor still holds in many late‑stage startups and public tech companies. Founders bring vision, risk appetite, and product intuition; MBAs often bring structure, process, and capital markets fluency. Liemandt’s warning, however, is directed at those who aspire to be the former but choose educational paths optimized for the latter. For aspiring builders, he suggests that the opportunity cost—two prime years and six‑figure capital—is too high.​

Strategic implications for CEOs, boards, and investors

For CEOs and boards, Liemandt’s comments invite a more nuanced talent framework. Instead of asking “MBA or not?”, the more strategic questions might be: what roles truly require an MBA skill set, and where would hands‑on founder experience be more valuable? In corporate innovation units, venture studios, and early‑stage acquisitions, leaders with startup scars may outperform classroom‑trained managers, even if their credentials look less polished on paper.​

Investors and wealth managers, meanwhile, may want to reassess how they advise next‑generation clients on capital allocation to education versus entrepreneurship. For a future operator who wants to run a family business or a mid‑market industrial company, a top MBA may remain a rational investment. For a would‑be software founder willing to embrace uncertainty, Liemandt’s playbook—deploy the same six‑figure capital into building, not studying—may offer superior financial and experiential returns.

MBAs, founders, pay, and pathways

For an elite readership, the core tension is now explicit: MBAs remain a proven escalator into the upper tiers of corporate pay and power, while entrepreneurs like Joe Liemandt argue that, for true builders, the classroom is an expensive detour from the only education that really compounds—owning decisions, owning equity, and owning outcomes in the real economy.