If you'd like to discuss we can. It seems like you don't really want to learn anything about what an MBA or a person who has one is like and have some preconceived negative feelings about them, but if you're willing to listen I can tell you.

I'd probably start by saying that not all people with MBAs are in the executive leadership team, CEOs, board members, etc. They're not all "the fat cats in charge." In fact, most aren't. You have people like business and financial analysts, salespeople, and people managers with those degrees. For example, a couple of my classes involved learning about effective people management, the kind of thing that would benefit an engineering manager.

> MBA also can't really be compared to Nursing, or really most other degrees.

How so? It's got classes, tests, math, writing, reading, analyzing. It sure felt like a degree to me when I was writing papers, citing sources, putting formulas in spreadsheets, etc.

> In some capacity MBAs are a self-fulfilling role, where the existence of the degree and the artificial rarity associated with the "big schools" around it, create a necessity for more MBAs in the future.

I would ask how is this different than any other job that asks for the candidate to have a degree or a presigious degree? Do I need an engineering degree to write code? Technically, no. For an MBA there really isn't any scarcity unless you are looking for an extremely prestigious job that wants a prestigious degree program, which is the the exact same thing that engineering firms hiring MIT graduates do. It's way easier to find accreddited online MBA programs than it is to find online accredited engineering programs, especially for engineering programs that require in-person lab work.

> First, we don't know what firms are working with what employers sometimes until decades later due to the various NDAs and secrecy around them.

This is quite literally untrue in the context of public companies that have mandatory disclosures like the 10-K. Also, you know how Hacker News has a bunch of articles about the goings-on of businesses on the front page every day? Yeah, those are articles that can be used as information for analysis. I cited TechCrunch a decent number of times during my time as a student. How do you think business leaders analyze their competition? They don't just sit there and twiddle their thumbs and say "I don't know what my competitor is doing, they won't tell me, it's behind an NDA!" No, they gather information about their industry to benchmark just like you and I do.

And sure, the case studies we used in class were sometimes 10 years old but that didn't make them worthless, and quite often they were much newer than that. Some car companies could still learn a thing or two from the Toyota Production System from the 1980s.

Now, let's talk about your last two paragraphs. You are essentially saying that business leaders never take blame for anything, and that everyone else takes responsibility and blame. But that's really not true either: business leaders are more frequently compensated with performance incentives and company stock compared to engineers, nurses, etc. That means that poor long-term company performance will lower their pay.

Sure, there are cases where executives abuse these compensation schemes, but overall those compensation schemes are there to make sure the executive leadership makes the kind of decisions that grow the company and make its shares more valuable.

> When was the last time a firm took responsibility for destroying a company?

When was the last time an engineer took responsibility for destroying a company? Or a nurse or doctor took responsibility for destroying a medical practice? How many doctors are out there agreeing that they engaged malpractice when they get sued? It's kind of a ridiculous question, isn't it? Who is raising their hand and saying "blame me” as a generality? I don't know a lot of general humans like that who volunteer to be fired, be thrown in jail, or face fines.