Skip to content
ENTR

Theme Journal

10 course points · Two checkpoints, 5 points each · Individual work

🌎 Overview

Your theme journal is where you turn entrepreneurial stories into lessons you can use. Keep it in your course workbook: collect specific evidence, connect ideas across founders, and revisit what you think as you learn more. Your external engagement papers share the workbook but have a separate 10-point grade category. Paper 1 is waived with full credit; complete Papers 2 and 3.

The journal has two checkpoints worth five points each. Everyone receives 5/5 for Checkpoint 1 because of the revised rollout. For Checkpoint 2, develop five useful, well-supported themes.

🤔 Rationale

It’s easy to finish a founder’s story with “work hard” or “take risks.” The interesting work starts when you ask what kind of risk, under what circumstances, and with what consequences. A useful theme gives another entrepreneur something to consider or do—and helps them recognize when that advice might not apply.

This journal gives you room to test those ideas before using them in your final group project. I want to see what changed your thinking, including evidence that made an earlier idea less tidy. Changing your mind for a good reason is part of the work!

🏗️ Structure

One ongoing journal

Use the Running Themes Log, Entrepreneurial Learning Journal, and External Engagement sections of your workbook together. Refer to an existing entry when that saves repeating the same evidence. Keep your starting ideas visible so we can see how they develop.

You may write your reflections or link to audio / video responses. Make each response easy to find, label the prompt it addresses, and check that I can open any linked media. The same expectations for evidence and thought apply in every format.

Starting point

Skip the starting-beliefs exercise. The running log is for collecting possible themes as you encounter useful stories; you may revise, combine, or discard entries, and the status column is optional. In-class starters and optional case-preparation pages are practice, not separate graded submissions.

Checkpoint 1: transition credit — 5 points

Everyone receives all five points for this checkpoint. You do not need to recreate the earlier candidate-theme or outside-story submissions.

Checkpoint 2: developed themes — 5 points

  • Develop at least five themes, each supported by at least two specific sources. You can revise and build on your earlier themes.
  • Explain where each lesson holds, where it needs qualification, and how the evidence has changed your thinking.
  • Complete External Engagement Papers 2 and 3 by the separate deadline in the External Engagement tab. Paper 1 is waived with full credit; all three papers count equally in their own 10-point category.
  • Reflect on how your thinking has developed. What did the evidence confirm, complicate, or overturn? Name the cases, speakers, or outside stories that influenced you; no starting-beliefs exercise is required.
  • Choose the lesson you’d most want to share with a friend about to start something, and explain why.
  • Apply your themes to your group’s founder as the interview research becomes available. Where does their experience support, complicate, or challenge the pattern?

What makes a useful theme?

Start with a lesson someone could act on. Then name your sources, explain the evidence, and identify the circumstances that matter. For example, “build a good team” becomes more useful when you explain how founders can balance complementary skills with aligned values—and support that advice with specific decisions and outcomes from the stories we’ve studied.

A case title by itself isn’t evidence. Help the reader see the connection you saw. You’re welcome to develop themes we haven’t named in class; the important thing is how well you support them.

External engagement

Choose events or founder-focused books, podcasts, talks, films, articles, or interviews that explore the experience of starting or helping start a venture. A substantive founder story can qualify even when someone else narrates it. General news alone does not automatically qualify. Ask if you are unsure. In-person events can also give you a chance to meet people and ask questions.

For each entry, identify the founder, source, and when you encountered it. Capture specific decisions or moments, connect them to course concepts or themes, and explain your own assessment. Keep the reflection focused; a recap alone won’t show what you learned.

External engagement papers are graded separately from the journal: three equally weighted papers total 10 course points, with Paper 1 waived for full credit. There are no one-week submission deadlines for these entries.

Submission

Complete the work under its existing headings in your shared course workbook. Once it is there, it is submitted; there is no second upload, form, or Slack message. Make your journal, themes log, and external engagement entries easy to find and check document access. Grades remain in eLC. AI may assist capture, transcription, or organization of material; write the submitted journal and reflection prose yourself. This permission does not authorize AI to plan, draft, revise, or shorten a case analysis. The syllabus’s academic honesty, assignment-specific AI-use, and late-work policies apply.

📓 Grading

Checkpoint 1 receives 5/5 automatically. Checkpoint 2 earns one score out of 5 using the scale below: I’ll consider completion, the specificity of your evidence, and the quality of your connections and reflection. The later external engagement deadline remains separate from the five-theme deadline; those papers are graded in their own 10-point category.

  • 5 — Complete, thoughtful work throughout. Themes offer useful, specific advice; evidence from multiple sources supports the connections; and reflection shows careful consideration of limits and changes in your thinking.
  • 4.25 — Complete and well-supported overall, with one area that needs more specificity or development.
  • 3.5 — The main work is present, but evidence, connections, or reflection are uneven. Some entries lean on general lessons or summary.
  • 2.5 — Important components are missing or underdeveloped, making it difficult to follow the reasoning behind your themes.
  • 1 — Very little usable evidence of the required work or reflection.
  • 0 — No assessable work submitted.

Scores between these descriptions are possible. A thoughtfully revised idea can earn full credit; you don’t have to pretend you had everything figured out from the beginning. Clear organization helps me follow your thinking, but elaborate visual design isn’t required.

⏰ Timeline

Build the journal as we encounter cases, speakers, and outside stories. Record evidence while the details are fresh.

  • Checkpoint 1: full credit for everyone; no catch-up submission required.
  • As you work: use feedback, test your themes against new stories, and collect evidence from your founder interview.
  • By checkpoint 2: five developed themes, each with evidence from at least two sources, limits or counterexamples, and reflection on how your thinking has changed.

Five developed themes are due November 3, 2026 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern. The two external reflections have a separate deadline: November 19 before your section’s class — 11:35 a.m. or 2:55 p.m. Eastern. This journal replaces the earlier three-journal sequence and separate ten-theme showcase.

Source: Fall 2026 course syllabus — Theme Journal, reviewed October 13, 2026 and reconciled with John’s current instructions. Current requirements and deadlines are maintained on this course site.