Yes, today’s a special edition.

Because I joined Shark Tank India this season as a shark.

Login or Subscribe to participate

Hey folks, Pratham here.

Welcome to Paradox Weekly, a Masters' Union newsletter, where we break down the ideas, trends, and contradictions shaping business today.

I've been thinking about this question a lot lately.

Five years ago, when we started Masters' Union, I had this belief that business schools were fundamentally broken. 

The implicit message:

Watch the game
But what about playing it?

So we built something different.

Students run actual businesses from day one.
Dropshipping stores, content channels, full-blown startups.
With all this came real revenue, customers and ofc failure. 

And… I'm not sure it should work.

The paradox of the classroom founder

Think about what we're asking students to do.
Learn business by running one.

Find product-market fit while attending lectures.
Raise funding while preparing for placements.

It sounds absurd when you say it out loud.

The conventional wisdom says entrepreneurship cannot be taught.

You either have the gene or you don't.

School is where you go to avoid risk instead of embracing it.

And the best founders are dropouts who couldn't sit still long enough to graduate.

Yet here I am, looking at our five-year data, and the numbers don't fit the narrative.

From students.
In classrooms.
Learning theory alongside practice.

What actually happened

Let me tell you about Yugal, Mohit, and Mohit.

They started EIGHT at a cafeteria table during their first term.
Three guys wondering why every creator needed to show their face.
Why couldn't audio be enough?

The prototype was built using engineering favors from their undergrad networks.
The MVP launched inside their 60-person batch. 

Or take Kanav from Woody's Pizzeria.
He spent 15 years obsessing over pizza as a hobby before finally admitting he wanted to build something. He was 35 when he started. 

Terrified that customers would hate his product.
Terrified that hobbies don't pay bills.

He went from being unrated on Zomato to 4.7 stars, becoming the highest-rated pizzeria in South Delhi.

Then there's Bhavya and Manan from Beyond Veda. 

Their Ayurvedic wellness brand started as a college project. They launched with one SKU, a DIY website, and more self-doubt than confidence. They crossed ₹2 crore in revenue, entirely bootstrapped.

The uncomfortable truth

I've been wrestling with why this works when the theory says it shouldn't.

What I've landed on is: entrepreneurship is about developing the stomach for wrong answers.

When Kanav's first batch sold out and every review came back 4 or 5 stars, he learned he could survive judgment.
When Beyond Veda's early customers kept coming back despite the "scrappy DIY website,"

Bhavya and Manan earned that honesty compounds.
You can't teach that in a case study.

BUT you can create the conditions for it to happen.

The Dropshipping Challenge puts students in front of real customers within weeks.

The Creator Challenge turns students into actual content creators.

We have no theoretical frameworks.
We just ask students to publish, measure, iterate.

We've had students cross 5,000 followers while still figuring out their final year projects.

The Venture Initiation Program takes them through Pre-Seed to MVP to Go-to-Market to Product-Market Fit. And Demo Day puts them in front of 150 real VCs.

The classroom becomes a laboratory.
The student becomes the experiment.

What I got wrong

I used to think we were teaching entrepreneurship.
I was wrong.

We're teaching recovery.

The ability to ship something ugly, watch it fail, and ship again.

The skill of hearing "no" from a customer and not making it mean something about your worth. The practice of separating your identity from your outcomes.

Kanav at Woody's had to give away pizzas for weeks just to collect feedback.
Shubham and Vansh at SeedsAI spent months shadowing NBFC agents before writing a single line of code. 

They all fixed it and shipped again.

So here’s the question:

If the classroom can create founders, what does that mean for who gets to build the future?

The dropout myth has a dark side.

It says entrepreneurship is for people who can afford to fail.
People with safety nets.
People who don't need the degree to fall back on.

None of them dropped out.

Why I'm thinking about this now

Last month, Sony reached out.

They wanted Masters' Union to be the exclusive partner for Shark Tank India's Campus Special episode.

My first reaction was excitement.
Then came something else.

For five years, we've been running our own version of Shark Tank inside campus.
Demo Days. VC pitches. Real funding. Real stakes.

Four of our startups have already pitched on the actual show.

But this felt different.

So I said yes.

I don't know if we'll find the next EIGHT or Beyond Veda from this.

But I know we'll find someone who's been waiting for proof that people like them can build something.

Consider this the sign.

One more thing

It’s in our foreword too:

"The future doesn't happen to us. We create it."

I wrote that. And I still believe it.

But I've also learned something these five years: you don't create the future alone.

You create the conditions for others to create it with you.

That's what education should be.
A participation sport, it’s not meant to be one where you’re the spectator. 

Here's my question for you: If you had to start a business today, would you rather do it while in school with a safety net, or drop out and bet everything on it? Why?

I read every email.

Until next week,
Pratham

P.S. Apply for Shark Tank India Campus Special before December 26th.


Keep Reading