Berkeley's EECS program gave me a world-class technical education, but the journey from classroom to founding Popper revealed significant gaps between academic excellence and startup success. Here's what I wish I'd known.
Let me be clear: my Berkeley education was invaluable. I learned to design efficient algorithms, build complex systems, and approach problems with analytical rigor. The technical foundation gave me confidence to tackle challenging engineering problems and speak the language of technology with precision.
Courses like CS 162 (Operating Systems) taught me how complex systems interact, while CS 170 (Algorithms) gave me tools to optimize for efficiency. These fundamentals serve me daily as I architect solutions for Popper.
But as I transitioned from engineer to founder, I discovered that technical excellence was necessary but far from sufficient for startup success.
In school, problems are well-defined with clear evaluation criteria. In startups, you're simultaneously defining the problem and creating the solution. This requires a fundamentally different mindset.
I spent three weeks optimizing our reward calculation algorithm to handle theoretical scale before realizing I hadn't validated whether users even valued the feature. Academic training taught me to perfect solutions; startup reality taught me to question whether I was solving the right problem.
Berkeley taught me how computers think. It didn't teach me how humans think. Understanding user psychology—their motivations, mental models, and decision-making processes—proved far more challenging than any technical problem.
My first user interviews were embarrassingly ineffective. I asked leading questions, focused on features instead of problems, and interpreted responses through my own biased lens. Learning to truly understand users required unlearning the solution-first mindset that had served me well in engineering courses.
Academic problems have correct answers. Startup problems rarely do. Learning to make good decisions with incomplete information—and to adjust quickly when those decisions prove wrong—was a painful adjustment.
In our first year, we faced a critical decision: focus on user acquisition or business partnerships? With limited resources, we couldn't effectively do both. No algorithm could provide the answer; we had to make a bet based on limited data and be prepared to pivot if necessary.
So how did I fill these knowledge gaps? Through what I now call my "second education":
Nothing accelerated my learning like direct user interaction. Watching people use our product, observing their confusion and delight, provided insights no textbook could offer. I now consider user research as fundamental to product development as code itself.
My Berkeley network was predominantly technical. Building Popper required expanding beyond that comfort zone to include designers, marketers, business strategists, and industry experts. These diverse perspectives helped me see blind spots my technical training had created.
In academia, failure often carries significant penalties. In startups, it's an essential learning tool. Our first pricing model failed spectacularly, but the insights from that failure informed a revised approach that's now core to our business success.
For current students or recent graduates considering entrepreneurship, here's how I'd recommend bridging the gap between academic knowledge and startup reality:
Three years into building Popper, I've come to see that my education didn't end when I received my degree—it had barely begun. The most valuable skills I've developed as a founder have come from embracing challenges outside my comfort zone, making mistakes, and being willing to learn from anyone and everyone.
Berkeley gave me an excellent foundation, but building a successful company has required continuous learning across disciplines I never studied formally. That's both the challenge and the thrill of the founder journey—you're always a student, and the curriculum is constantly evolving.
I'd love to hear from other technical founders about their experiences bridging the academic-startup gap. What lessons did your formal education miss? How have you filled those knowledge gaps? Connect with me on Twitter to continue the conversation.