I am a young professional from Pune, India, and my experience with Masters’ Union’s PGP Rise programme has left me questioning one of the biggest decisions of my life.
This is not just about placements. This is about trust, transparency, and the responsibility of an institution that charges lakhs of rupees from students.
- Placement promises during admission
During the admission process, the same sales representative who convinced me to join presented placement-related information, including a placement report for TBM, as part of the pitch.
Pratham Mittal has also discussed placements in podcasts. From a prospective student’s perspective, such representations can create the impression that placement support and outcomes are available. The distinction between TBM outcomes, PGP Rise outcomes, and the actual placement support offered to PGP Rise students needs to be made absolutely clear.
Where is the clear, programme-specific placement report that students can use to make an informed decision?
If the outcomes being showcased belong to another programme, prospective students deserve to know that before paying their fees.
- The 5+ years of experience question
The brochure stated that the programme was intended for candidates with 5+ years of experience. Yet, my experience of the cohort has been that it includes freshers and candidates with substantially less work experience.
I joined with approximately two years of experience.
If the programme was marketed around experienced professionals, why were candidates with very different experience levels admitted? Were the eligibility criteria changed? If so, were prospective students clearly informed before making their decision?
These are reasonable questions that deserve transparent answers.
- A faculty member’s alleged admission about the sales process
Bhupesh Moharana, a marketing professor, acknowledged in a conversation with me that the sales team had misled students during the admission process, as I understood his statement.
I also have a recording of this conversation.
I am not asking anyone to blindly accept my version. I want the institution to address the conversation, the admission representations, and the supporting evidence through a proper, transparent process.
- Does the leadership know what is happening?
My concern is not limited to an individual salesperson. I want answers from the PGP Rise team and the institution's leadership, including the people responsible for admissions, marketing, and programme outcomes.
Were the placement representations made during admission accurate? Were the differences between programmes explained? Were the experience criteria communicated honestly?
Students should not have to spend months chasing answers after paying their fees.
- The financial and personal cost
I have invested approximately 20 lakh in my education. That is a significant amount of money for a young professional, particularly when education loans and financial responsibilities are involved.
I enrolled expecting the programme to help me progress professionally. Instead, the gap between my expectations and my experience has caused me considerable stress about my career and financial future.
The situation has affected my mental well-being, and I have struggled with suicidal thoughts during this difficult period. I am sharing this to explain the seriousness of the impact, not to seek sympathy.
No student should feel that their future has been put at risk because they could not obtain clear answers about what was promised to them.
What I want Masters’ Union to answer
What placement data was shown to prospective PGP Rise students, and which programme did those outcomes actually represent?
What placement assistance and outcomes can PGP Rise students realistically expect?
Why did the admitted cohort include freshers and candidates with substantially less than five years of experience when the brochure referred to 5+ years?
Will the institution review the sales conversations and the recording of my discussion with the faculty member?
What concrete support will be provided to students who believe they joined based on misleading representations?
I am willing to share relevant documents and evidence through an appropriate process. I also invite Masters’ Union to respond to these specific questions.
This is not about attacking an institution for the sake of it. It is about accountability.
An expensive business education programme should not require students to discover the difference between what they understood during admission and what they actually receive after joining.
Prospective students: please ask for the placement report for the exact programme you are joining, speak to current students and alumni, verify the eligibility criteria, and get placement commitments in writing before paying.
Education is an investment. Transparency should not be optional.
I want answers, accountability, and a fair resolution not marketing statements.