Masters’ Union’s latest detailed placement report reviewed here is for PGP in Technology and Business Management (PGP TBM) Cohort 2025. The school reports an average CTC of ₹33.39 lakh per annum, a median of ₹27.79 lakh, and a highest CTC of ₹1.28 crore. These are reported compensation figures, not guaranteed fixed pay or take-home salary. The report’s counts also show why a headline average should not be read as an outcome for every graduate: 173 of 234 graduating students sought placements through the institute, 61 did not, and the report records 162 accepted offers plus 11 students still in active processes or awaiting letters. (official Careers statistics, 2025 placement report)
PGP TBM Cohort 2025: headline outcomes and comparison
The most useful comparison is the median, not the record offer. The Careers page reports the median at ₹27.79 lakh for Cohort 2025 and ₹27.77 lakh for Cohort 2024, effectively flat at the displayed precision. Over the same comparison, the average rose by ₹4.87 lakh (about 17.1%), while the highest CTC increased from ₹61.80 lakh to ₹1.28 crore. This gap suggests that a small number of high packages can move the average and maximum without a comparable change in the middle of the cohort. This is a comparison of the institution’s displayed cohort summaries, not an independently calculated salary distribution.
The school’s current page labels the columns average, median and highest CTC, and separately reports average CTC for the top 25%, middle 80% and bottom 25%. These are group averages; they are not placement rates or individual salary guarantees. The middle-80% average is more representative of the central bulk than a highest package, but it is still a group mean and should not be confused with the cohort median. The rounded web values are ₹29.20 lakh for the middle 80% and ₹22.75 lakh for the bottom quarter.
Who is included, and who is outside the placement denominator
The 2025 report lists 234 graduating students. Of these, 173 sought placements through the institute’s process; 61 did not. The report gives reasons for the latter group, including 39 students pursuing entrepreneurship, three continuing education, five joining family businesses, 12 taking opportunities outside the campus process, and two in other categories. Those 61 should not be silently counted as unemployed, nor should they be treated as placed through the school.
For the 173 placement-seeking students, the report lists 162 accepted offers and 11 students in active negotiations, final interviews or awaiting offer letters. An offer count is not automatically a count of distinct students placed: the report does not provide enough detail here to determine whether any student received multiple offers or how every offer was distributed across students. For that reason, this page does not convert 162 offers into a placement rate. Applicants comparing schools should ask for the number of unique students placed, the number still seeking work, and the reporting cut-off date alongside any percentage.
The published outcome page is specifically labelled PGP TBM. The same page shows a separate YLC panel, but that does not establish a complete placement outcome for a separate YLC cohort. In its report, the school describes a “Young Leaders” subgroup as PGP TBM students with zero to one year of experience. Its YLC-branded figures must therefore be read as a subgroup drawn from PGP TBM Cohort 2025, not evidence that a standalone YLC cohort had the same result. Do not transfer these numbers to current 2027–29 applicants or to other Masters’ Union programmes.
What the salary figures measure
The placement report was audited by B2K Analytics, formerly Brickworks Analytics, and identifies the audit framework as IPRS 2.2. The report describes remuneration as CTC or maximum earning potential (MEP), not monthly in-hand salary. Its audit appendix reports the 2025 PGP TBM MEP distribution for 162 observations: mean ₹33,39,213, median ₹27,78,750, minimum ₹20 lakh and maximum ₹1.28 crore. The website rounds the median to ₹27.79 lakh. The figure includes eligible compensation components and should not be equated with fixed cash paid during the first year.
The report explains that MEP may include performance-linked and variable pay, and certain stock options vesting in the first year. It also notes that gratuity is included in its MEP calculation although it is payable only after five years of service. Long-term stock options and other benefits vesting after the first year are excluded, and a one-time joining or retention amount is included only where applicable. A student should compare the fixed component, variable-pay conditions, vesting schedule, location, role and any one-time payment in the actual offer rather than comparing headline CTC alone.
The audit is not a guarantee that every underlying recruiter document was independently verified. The report notes that the auditor did not source offer documents directly from recruiters; the institution confirmed some offers through its undertaking. It also flags limits on verification for some role-function and location information. The school’s audit statement is useful evidence of a defined review, but readers should retain the report’s scope and qualifications when interpreting the figures.
Roles, employers and the limits of recruiter lists
The Careers page groups its recruiter display under consulting, BFSI, large technology, venture capital, consumer technology and emerging technology. Those category labels indicate the kinds of organisations the school highlights; they do not show how many students joined each sector or how many offers came from each employer. Alumni stories name individual roles and employers, but a testimonial is an individual example, not evidence of a cohort-wide outcome or a guaranteed career path.
For a decision about fit, ask the school for role-wise and sector-wise counts, unique students placed, fixed-versus-variable pay distributions and the latest cohort’s reporting cut-off. For a specific offer, check whether the amount is domestic or international, fixed or maximum potential, and whether stock or conditional incentives are included. A high maximum package may be relevant to the possibility of an outlier outcome, but the nearly unchanged displayed median between 2024 and 2025 gives a different and more typical signal.
How to use the report when evaluating the programme
Treat the 2025 report as historical evidence for PGP TBM Cohort 2025. It does not forecast the outcome for the current Cohort ’28 or Young Leaders Cohort ’29, establish an employment guarantee, or provide a comparable salary result for every programme listed by the institution. The school’s published fee schedule is a separate cost question; calculate your own return using the relevant programme fee, financing cost, living expenses and a realistic salary scenario rather than the highest CTC.
Before paying a deposit, request the latest placement report and ask for the cohort size, number seeking placement, unique number placed, offers accepted, students still in process, and the precise definition of average and median CTC. Ask whether the school can provide fixed-pay and variable-pay distributions and whether the reported cohort matches the programme and experience pathway in your offer. These details are necessary to compare the advertised outcome with your own likely costs and career goals.