Education, Autonomy & Ambition: Lessons from Stanford for Singapore’s Next Generation of Founders

If you hang around Block 71 long enough, you’ll hear two recurring complaints from investors and founders: “Talent is thin,” and “We need better deal-flow from the universities.” Both issues share a common root—how our education system shapes (or stifles) entrepreneurial ambition.

A timely Stanford study by Prof. Chuck Eesley and co-authors puts fresh data behind this hunch. Their five-year investigation of a major Chinese university’s 1985 credit-system reform shows that when students gain genuine freedom to mix-and-match electives, their likelihood of launching a venture jumps by 159%. A companion Stanford news feature distills two decades of Eesley’s work into a single takeaway: universities evolve into engines of innovation only when three forces converge—flexible curricula, dense mentorship networks, and sustained government capital.

Below are three quick provocations for Singapore, filtered through the lens of our ecosystem’s strengths (capital efficiency, policy agility) and blind spots (risk appetite, uneven social networks).

1. Curriculum Freedom > Classroom Content

Eesley’s data echo what every founder-turned-angel already knows: the spark rarely comes from a standalone “Entrepreneurship 101” module. It’s the serendipity of a chemistry major stumbling into a design-thinking elective, or a CS undergrad hacking on a public-policy capstone, that breeds venture-scale insight.

Yet our local universities still ration electives like C-class shares. NTU’s Renaissance Engineering Programme is a solid start, but most faculties lock freshmen into inflexible tracks by Year 2. The Stanford study suggests a simpler KPI than churning out more incubators: track the percentage of undergrads who cross faculty lines for at least 20 credits. Shift that dial, and you shift the venture funnel.

2. Mentorship Density as Social Infrastructure

Eesley’s earlier work at Stanford’s STVP shows that alumni connections don’t just open doors—they reduce failure rates by steering novice founders toward better decisions. Singapore’s talent BBQ pits (NUS Overseas Colleges, YC-style accelerators) are making progress, but the mentor pool skews toward repeat founders in SaaS and fintech.

We need a broader bench. Imagine pairing deep-tech PhDs with ex-Glaxo scientists who’ve navigated FDA hell, or matching sustainability founders with Keppel veterans fluent in industrial sales cycles. Creating this “mesh network” of expertise is social infrastructure work—slow, unsexy, but catalytic.

3. Government Money Still Matters—But Only If It’s Patient

The Project 985 case in China underlines why targeted, multi-decade funding transforms universities into venture flywheels. Singapore’s NRF investments tick many of those boxes, yet grant timelines often clash with the 8-10-year runway deep-tech firms require.

Two tweaks could unlock outsized returns:

Evergreen Proof-of-Concept Funds – rolling grants that follow the researcher, not the calendar year.
IP-Light Licensing – allow spin-offs to keep more equity upfront in exchange for revenue share post-exit, reducing the handicap that first-time founders face when negotiating Series A valuations.

Closing Thought

Stanford’s success wasn’t pre-ordained by geography; it was engineered through decades of policy bets that privileged autonomy, mentorship, and patient capital. Singapore’s ecosystem has the hardware—capital, connectivity, credibility. The next leap demands firmware upgrades inside our universities: give students room to roam, surround them with operators, and keep the funding horizon long.

Do that, and the next Grab-scale story might just begin in a seminar room overlooking Clementi rather than Sand Hill Road.

Based on “University Education Reform and Entrepreneurship,” Eesley et al., SSRN 1884493.ssrn-1884493.pdf
“The rise of universities as engines of innovation,” Stanford News, 18 Aug 2025.

Are Singapore’s GIA U.S. Programmes Enough? Why a Selective, Revenue-Focused Accelerator Is Essential

Singaporean startups eyeing the vast U.S. market—valued at over US$147 billion for tech firms—have found a stepping stone in Enterprise Singapore’s Global Innovation Alliance (GIA) programs. With hubs in San Francisco and New York City, these initiatives offer workshops on business culture, fundraising, and legal navigation, paired with 1:1 mentorship and immersive two-week trips. The impact is evident in success stories like myFirst Tech, which secured a US$15 million manufacturing contract for its kid-friendly wearables across 20,000 North American locations, and CareCam, which launched its 3DGait motion-analysis system in the U.S. post-program. Participants from the inaugural New York batch have also praised the eye-opening training.

Yet, as Singapore solidifies its position as the 4th-ranked global startup ecosystem in 2025, with S$6.7 billion in venture funding in 2024, questions arise: Are GIA programs sufficient to transform high-growth startups into global leaders? While they excel at market discovery, critical gaps in selection rigour, program duration, and outcome metrics suggest a need for a bolder, more selective follow-on accelerator focused on revenue and scaling. Let’s unpack the limitations and propose a solution.

The Limits of Discovery: GIA’s Current Model Falls Short

GIA programs, while foundational, face structural constraints that hinder their impact on high-growth startups. Cohorts are notably small—only nine startups in New York’s first intake—and the 6-10 week duration offers just a glimpse into the U.S. market’s complexities, where over 33 million small businesses compete fiercely. Enterprise Singapore reports supporting 500 companies across all GIA cities, but transparency on tangible outcomes like revenue growth or job creation is lacking. The emphasis on “discovery” KPIs—such as mentorship hours or initial connections—stops short of measuring sales or sustained market traction, leaving a gap between exposure and execution.

More critically, the selection process lacks clear benchmarks for U.S. readiness or venture-backability. Without public criteria assessing product-market fit, scalable innovation, or early traction, cohorts risk including startups too premature for international scaling. This contributes to inconsistent outcomes, with only a fraction reportedly achieving meaningful commercial success. A 2023 McKinsey study on startup internationalisation notes that programs without strict entry filters see success rates drop by 20-30%, as underprepared firms falter in competitive markets—a trend likely reflected in GIA’s results.

The Missing Link: Rigorous Selection for Global Contenders

For Singapore to maximise returns on public investment, the next step must prioritise selectivity. A highly selective program should target only the most globally competitive startups—those among the top performers in their verticals (e.g., AI, fintech, biotech), with demonstrable U.S. traction such as active pilots, beta users, or letters of intent from American clients. Additional criteria could include prior funding rounds exceeding S$2-5 million. This mirrors elite accelerators like Y Combinator, where a 1-2% acceptance rate correlates with 40-50% higher traction among participants, proving that vetting for readiness drives results.

Without such filters, resources are spread too thin, potentially fostering “grantrepreneurship” where firms join for subsidies (covering 50-70% of GIA costs) rather than genuine growth potential. A focused selection process would ensure taxpayer funds back startups with a realistic shot at becoming category leaders, amplifying Singapore’s reputation as Asia’s top startup hub.

Closing the Loop: A Revenue-Driven Follow-On Accelerator

To propel these high-potential firms, Singapore needs a second-stage accelerator tailored for startups with global appeal and initial U.S. traction.

Here’s a blueprint for this complementary initiative:

Extended Duration and Depth: Spanning 3-6 months, the program would enable founders to build local sales operations, refine pricing strategies, and navigate U.S. procurement cycles—far beyond GIA’s short sprints. This aligns with models like Founder Institute and Techstars international cohorts, where 3-month revenue-focused programs drive average growth of 2-3x.

Revenue as the North Star: Success metrics would center on signed contracts, recurring revenue, and follow-on funding, rather than exploratory outputs. South Korea’s K-Startup Grand Challenge, a 4-month immersion, reports 40% of alumni securing U.S. deals by prioritising such outcomes.

Leveraging GIA Foundations: Building on GIA’s networks, the accelerator would connect graduates to corporate partners, venture capitalists, and government channels, fast-tracking commercial deals. Performance-based funding incentives could further align participant goals with economic impact.

This follow-on program wouldn’t replace GIA’s discovery focus, which remains vital for early-stage founders learning U.S. business norms. Instead, it creates a pipeline: GIA builds the base, and the accelerator scales the best. A 2025 OECD report highlights that nations with diversified startup support—balancing discovery and scaling—see 25% higher ecosystem growth, a strategy Singapore, with its 4,500+ tech startups and doubled interest in U.S. expansion, is poised to adopt.

Why This Matters: Economic Returns and Global Standing

A selective, revenue-driven accelerator could yield significant returns. Beyond replicating myFirst Tech-style wins, it could drive job creation, attract U.S. investment back to Singapore, and solidify the nation’s edge as a launchpad for global unicorns (currently 20 active). Evidence from similar initiatives suggests a 1.5-2x economic multiplier through such focused programs, justifying continued public investment with hard data on sales and sustainability.

Moreover, we need more companies to dominate globally to have a healthy startup ecosystem from 2025. Singapore’s innovation landscape thrives when local ventures not only enter but lead international markets, inspiring talent, attracting capital, and fostering a virtuous cycle of growth. Without programs that elevate top-tier startups to global dominance, the ecosystem risks stagnation, limiting spillover benefits like knowledge transfer and economic diversification.

Singapore’s high-growth startups deserve support that matches their ambition. GIA programs are a critical first step, demystifying the U.S. market. But to transform exposure into dominance, a highly selective, revenue-focused accelerator is the missing piece—ensuring the city-state doesn’t just nurture talent, but propels world-class ventures to conquer the toughest markets.

Elevating Horizons: Advancing Singapore’s University Spin-outs Toward Global Impact

Here's a number that should keep every policymaker awake at night: Singapore university spin-offs raise an average of $400,000. Stanford's raise $72 million.

That's not a rounding error. It's a 180x gap that exposes everything wrong with how we think about university commercialization.

The Uncomfortable Truth About University Spin-Offs

Don't get me wrong—Singapore's universities aren't broken. NUS and NTU have done exactly what they were asked to do: nurture 400+ teams, create jobs, tick the KPI boxes.

But here's the brutal reality: when it comes to building companies that Silicon Valley VCs actually want to fund, we're not even playing the same sport.

Looking at the past decade (2015-2025), the numbers tell a stark story:

Spin-outs Created: Stanford (~250), MIT (~260), NUS+NTU (~180)

Total Capital Raised: Stanford (~$180B), MIT (~$42B), NUS+NTU (~$80M)

Notable Exits over $100M: Stanford (~90), MIT (~32), NUS+NTU (4)

This isn't just a Singapore problem. Globally, university spin-offs have raised $158B+ across 8,042 investments over the past decade, but the US dominates with over 40% of all deals³. Most importantly, this isn't about research quality—Singapore's universities produce world-class science. The gap isn't just about money—it's about fundamentally different approaches to what constitutes success.

Why One Size Doesn't Fit All: The Case for Dual Tracks

Here's what Singapore gets right: the National Research Foundation's focus on talent development and job creation has built a solid foundation. Over 400 teams have gone through GRIP, generating meaningful economic contributions through local employment¹. In fact, recognizing this momentum, Singapore just launched the $50M National GRIP program in 2024, combining NUS and NTU efforts to support 300 startups by 2028⁴.

Here's what we're missing: *one size fits nobody*.

Stop trying to make every spin-off fit the same mold. Instead, create two completely different tracks:

Track 1: The Capability Building Track - Keep doing what we're doing. Nurture teams, create employment, satisfy the NRF mandate. Zero changes needed here.

Track 2: The Venture Track - A completely separate pathway for the 5-10% of spin-offs that could actually become global companies. Different rules, different standards, different outcomes.

The Venture Track: Where World-Class Standards Begin

If we're serious about competing with Stanford and MIT, we need to acknowledge an uncomfortable truth: *this will not be easy*. If building venture-backable university spin-offs were straightforward, every university in the world would have cracked the code.

The venture track demands three non-negotiables:

Rigorous Selection Criteria

Not every spin-off belongs here. We need brutal honesty about market size, technological differentiation, and global scalability potential.

World-Class Pitch Development

This is where we separate serious contenders from academic projects. Every venture-track spin-off must develop investor materials that exceed the standards expected in Silicon Valley and London Triangle. No exceptions, no "good enough for Asia" compromises. This means:

- Deep market analysis that rivals what the best investment and consulting firms can produce

- IP strategies crafted by the patent attorneys with global experience

- Go-to-market plans built by people who've identified, invested and scaled billion-dollar global companies

- Businesses and technologies that the best investors in the world would actually fund

Elite Advisory Networks

We cannot build this with good intentions and local expertise alone. We need the best people in the world—Silicon Valley operators, deep-tech investors, successful entrepreneurs who've built billion-dollar companies.

Learning from the Best: What Stanford, MIT, and Berkeley Do Differently

Stanford's StartX doesn't just provide mentorship—it plugs spin-offs directly into Silicon Valley's funding ecosystem. MIT's The Engine combines academic rigor with commercial discipline specifically for tough-tech ventures. UC Berkeley's SkyDeck leverages deep industry partnerships to drive real traction².

The proof is in the results.

UC Berkeley SkyDeck's Advisory Impact: SuperAnnotate, a computer vision startup, went through SkyDeck in 2019. Through the program's 300+ advisor network, they connected with Stanford professors and prominent figures in their field, raising a $14.5M Series A within two years. The founders specifically credited SkyDeck's advisor connections for helping them "crystallize their story and mission."

During COVID, MindfulGarden leveraged SkyDeck's virtual advisory network and achieved remarkable results: $44.8M in venture funding, 5x factory expansion, and 50+ new hires. As their founder noted: "Their knowledge base and connections are unlike anything we've had access to before."

MIT The Engine's Tough-Tech Focus: The Engine specifically targets "tough-tech" ventures requiring patient capital and deep expertise. Commonwealth Fusion Systems, spun out of MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center, has raised over $50M from strategic investors like Eni to commercialize fusion energy. Boston Metal, developing zero-emission steel production through molten oxide electrolysis, represents the kind of transformative industrial technology The Engine champions. Quaise Energy, working on geothermal drilling using gyrotron technology, exemplifies how The Engine connects MIT's cutting-edge research with commercial applications.

Stanford's HIT Fund has deployed capital across 100+ portfolio companies spanning life sciences to sustainability⁵.

Singapore must adopt these models wholesale—not adapt them. Being number one in Asia isn't good enough when we're competing with global leaders who attract international capital. NUS's Overseas Colleges program, particularly the Silicon Valley hub, should become mandatory for venture-track teams. If we want world-class results, we need world-class standards from day one, not local variations.

A Call to Arms: Singapore's Ecosystem Must Step Up

Building venture-backable spin-offs requires more than university resources. It demands our entire ecosystem—and that means you.

If you're an investor: We need your deal flow insights and due diligence expertise to help select and prepare venture-track companies.

If you're a successful entrepreneur: Your battle-tested knowledge of what actually works in global markets is invaluable for pitch development and strategy.

If you're a corporate leader: Your understanding of real market needs and partnership opportunities can make the difference between academic curiosity and commercial viability.

If you're a service provider (legal, accounting, consulting): World-class spin-offs need world-class support infrastructure.

The Path Forward: Concrete Next Steps

This isn't a theoretical exercise. Here's how we start:

1. Establish the Venture Track Selection Committee - Form a panel of successful entrepreneurs, VCs, and industry experts to identify genuine global opportunities among current and future spin-offs. Involve them early in the process.

2. Create the Pitch Development Academy - Build a 6-month intensive program where venture-track teams work with world-class advisors to develop investor-ready materials that meet international standards.

3. Launch the Global Immersion Program - Partner with NUS's Silicon Valley NOC (Block71 SV) to provide venture-track teams with direct exposure to successful ecosystems and investors.

4. Build the Advisory Network - Recruit 20-30 world-class advisors willing to commit meaningful time to Singapore spin-offs.

The opportunity is massive, but it's global—not regional. Southeast Asia's fund sizes often outpace returns from our current startup pipeline, but we shouldn't be satisfied dominating a regional market. Singapore's venture-track spin-offs must be built to compete in Silicon Valley, not just Southeast Asia. By building companies that attract top-tier international investors from day one, we can create the power law distribution that transforms Singapore from a regional hub into a global innovation powerhouse.

Want to help fix this? Don't send a LinkedIn message. Take action:

- Investors: Email GRIP/NUS Enterprise/NTU Ventures today. Specify exactly how you'll help select and mentor venture-track companies.

- Successful founders: Offer to be a mentor. Commit real time, not just networking calls.

- Service providers: Propose specific pro-bono packages for venture-track spin-offs.

- Government officials: Ask your team why Singapore's best research creates $400K companies while Stanford's creates $72M ones.

The 180x gap exists because we've been comfortable being #1 in Southeast Asia.

Time to get uncomfortable. Time to compete globally.

¹ GRIP Annual Report 2024, NUS Enterprise

² Stanford StartX, MIT The Engine, UC Berkeley SkyDeck program data, 2023

³ Global University Venturing, "University Spin-off Statistics 2023" - $158B+ raised globally across 8,042 investments (2013-2022)

⁴ National GRIP Singapore, "$50M National Programme Launch," October 2024

⁵ Stanford HIT Fund Portfolio Data, 2024 - 100+ portfolio companies across life sciences, physical sciences, and sustainability

Why Singapore's Stock Exchange Falls Short for Tech Startups: Insights from Regional Rivals

Singapore's tech startup ecosystem thrives, with over 4,500 ventures securing $2.1 billion in funding last year1. Yet, public listings on the Singapore Exchange (SGX) remain scarce, as unicorns opt for foreign markets. This analysis, informed by Bloomberg, DealStreetAsia, McKinsey, PitchBook, and official data, examines SGX's struggles and draws lessons from Tokyo, Jakarta, and Sydney to chart a path for Southeast Asia's innovation hub.

The SGX Listing Drought Is Real

Tech IPOs on SGX are unlikely to surge without major fixes. In 2024, just four listings occurred, none on the Mainboard, raising only $31 million2. By mid-2025, only three tech-related listings have materialized amid a global IPO rebound3. Rigid rules, such as the S$30 million profit threshold, exclude cash-burning tech firms focused on growth.

SGX's daily trading volume stalls at $1.1 billion4, contrasting Singapore's 7th global startup ranking and $144 billion in value1. This disparity drives firms like Grab ($40 billion NASDAQ debut) and Sea Limited (NYSE) abroad. Conservative investors prioritize dividends, with 68% of trades from volatility-averse retail players5. Retail outflows, like S$189.9 million in late 2019, exacerbate thin liquidity6.

Regional Variations: Not Just a Singapore Slump

Asia-Pacific peers outperform. Tokyo Stock Exchange (TSE) adapts swiftly, with $273 billion in Growth Market volume in 2023 extending into 20257. Its Asia Startup Hub aids 14 regional firms via streamlined processes SGX lacks.

Jakarta's Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) booms: 17 tech IPOs in 2023 climbed to 22 by mid-2025, with $881 billion market cap8. GoTo's $1.1 billion raise exemplifies flexible rules like dual-class shares. Australia's ASX supports 140 tech firms, enabling Afterpay's rise from $165 million to $29 billion acquisition9.

Geography influences: TSE yields 50% post-IPO gains, IDX's retail drive boosts 59% volume, and ASX's principles-based governance reduces bureaucracy10. SGX operates at 75% below tech potential (±7% confidence, DealStreetAsia and McKinsey data)11.

Snapshot:

Exchange	Tech IPOs (Mid-2025)	Daily Volume (USD)	Key Innovation
SGX	3	$1.1B	Proposed profit cut
TSE	~80% of annual	$273B (Growth Market)	Growth Market
IDX	22	$881B (market cap)	Dual-class shares
ASX	140 tech firms	$3.5B	Early-stage access

The Core Barriers: Rigidity and Risk Aversion

Outdated profit mandates ignore models like Amazon's, deterring tech startups12. Low liquidity repels institutions12, while risk aversion clashes with tech's experimentation13. Investor skew toward dividends undervalues tech, with 86% of Catalist stocks below debut price due to limited institutional buy-in14.

Funding shortages for Catalist firms (median revenue ~S$27.4 million) create stagnation, as banks favor traditional sectors with scant tech coverage versus Hong Kong's robust analysis15. Early-stage gaps, like Temasek's 88% investment cut from 2021-2024, favor US exits16. Regulatory delays (4-6 months under MAS/SGX RegCo) lag rivals, worsened by global pressures like high rates and no new unicorns in 202317.

Reforms emerge: SGX's profit cut to S$10-12 million and dual-class shares lag TSE/IDX innovations, but McKinsey eyes 150% regional listing growth by 2027 with metric shifts like revenue focus—though volatility risks persist (15% ASX dips)10.

Standout Successes That Defy the Odds

Successes highlight potential. TSE's JDRs let Singapore's Omni-Plus System list seamlessly18. IDX's Bukalapak raised $1.5 billion via flexible exits19. ASX's WiseTech Global scaled globally20.

These (20% of regional IPOs)10 prove innovative regulation works, contrasting SGX's rigidity. IDX's paths offer scaling lessons amid Singapore's talent and cost hurdles2.

Wisdom from Market Makers

Leaders urge evolution:

Temasek's Rohit Sipahimalani: "SGX must adapt to capture tech value or lose out"3.
TSE: "Flexibility drives 80% IPO share"7.
DealStreetAsia: "IDX's 22 IPOs show retail power—SGX needs it"5.
ASX: "Principles-based rules attract 230 listings"9.

What This Means for Singapore

Without change, SGX misses 70% of Southeast Asia's $300 billion startup value by 203012. Reforms like tech boards, Catalist funds via MAS's S$5 billion program, and coverage boosts could target <20% retail dominance and >$2 billion volume11. Startups: Avoid SGX's liquidity pitfalls; favor TSE/IDX gains. Advances could empower regional unicorns, addressing talent via incentives2.

Revitalizing Southeast Asia's Startup Ecosystem: From Ideation to Deep Tech

To fully address SGX's shortcomings, the broader regional startup ecosystem must be revitalized, tackling gaps from ideation to deep tech R&D funding, spinouts, and venture capital (VC) performance issues. Southeast Asia faces funding shortages for early-stage startups, talent constraints in AI and data science, and regulatory fragmentation across jurisdictions1 2. Deep tech funding tumbled 34% in 2024, yet its share of VC activity rose to 17.6%, driven by health tech and biotech, though challenges like skilled personnel shortages and high development costs persist7 17.

Spinouts from research institutions struggle with insufficient design data, manufacturing delays, and market penetration in areas like Singapore and Vietnam18. VC firms exhibit lackluster performance, with equity investments down amid selectivity for sustainable models over aggressive growth5 6. Quality issues include poor due diligence, fraud risks (e.g., eFishery case), and a shift to capital efficiency imperatives9 16.

Key actions include: Boosting ideation through university partnerships and internal talent development2; Increasing deep tech R&D funding via government incentives and green tech funds4 11; Facilitating spinouts with standardized governance frameworks and cross-border enforcement9; Addressing VC quality by embedding sustainability, enhancing transparency, and diversifying revenue streams2 5. Initiatives like ASEAN's Digital Economy Framework Agreement could finalize in 2025 to enable greater collaboration5. These steps could accelerate innovation, with projected GDP growth of 4.7% supporting consumer spending and ecosystem resilience5.

The Path Forward: Critical Reforms Needed

Turning SGX around requires aggressive action—it's possible but demands commitment amid economic headwinds. Top priorities: Flexible regulations (disclosure-based shift), liquidity boosts (S$5 billion fund, tax rebates), and ecosystem enhancements (research, talent support, VC governance)9 11 14.

Horizon shifts:

Reform Wave: Dual-class expansions could double listings by 202711.
Regional Alignment: Mirror ASX's institutional mix via IDX pacts8.
Innovation Edge: TSE-like hubs halve times to 12 months12.

2026-2030 outlook, cautiously:

Tech Surge: Capture 30% unicorns, adding $50 billion cap11.
Liquidity Leap: $3 billion volumes matching ASX4.
Global Ties: Pacts boost 40% non-local listings10.
Risk Tools: AI cuts volatility 25%12.

The revolution spreads—Singapore can lead with adaptive exchanges and a robust ecosystem. What reforms do you prioritize? What else is needed?

This draws from 2024-2025 reports by Bloomberg, DealStreetAsia, McKinsey, PitchBook, and exchange filings. (Word count: 1,128)