whatever value mba vc types did bring to the table
I still don't understand how they are valued at all. They don't invent anything, don't know how to help people who do, and are often bad at caretaking what has been built.
This is not meant as a swipe at them, but I honestly do not understand why they are highly valued.
Because, at least according to a handful of VCs at DFJ, 70% of the work they do involves interacting with and convincing other people (usually people who can help their portfolio companies in some way, shape, or form).
In general, MBAs are better at this than those with technical training.
Further, a VC doesn't have to understand the intimate technical details of an opportunity to recognize that it is a valuable opportunity.
I'm not saying this makes for a good relationship with your VC, but that's why the equilibrium set of employees tends towards MBAs instead of PhDs.
However, I think you'll find that many VCs in the top-tier did engineering at undergrad, then got an MBA.
Just look at the CVs and salary data (if available) at any VC firm, or, outside of the startup world, grep for median MBA compensation and compare it to any tech field median salary.
I still don't understand how they are valued at all. They don't invent anything, don't know how to help people who do, and are often bad at caretaking what has been built.
This is not meant as a swipe at them, but I honestly do not understand why they are highly valued.