4 ms·

Filtering from 3% down to 20 individuals doesn't have to mean they really think they're getting the best 20 out of that 3%. It just means that they're not inter

by smeyer 11y ago

Filtering from 3% down to 20 individuals doesn't have to mean they really think they're getting the best 20 out of that 3%. It just means that they're not interested in growing the size of the program past that. If adding more fellows would spread resources thinner and reduce the impact on each fellow, adding good people from the rest of that top 3% could be subtracting rather than adding "millions or potentially billions".

bmir-alum-007 11y ago
Contrarian doubt, climate change denial-style. Do you work for the coal and tobacco industries? ;) Cutting off one or two stellar founder teams to meet some artificially-low quotas is a lose-lose proposition: awesome founders don't get to meet other awesome founders, awesome founders don't get a chance to pitch awesome investors and so on. Limited flexibility is common-sense, irrational rigidity is value-destroying.
- smeyer 11y ago
  The assumption is that Y Combinator thinks that they're providing value through resources like mentorship, and that if they spread those resources too thin, they'll reduce the odds of producing a billion dollar company (or some similar metric). Sure, that limit may be flexible a bit one way or the other way based on the quality of the applicants, but it's neither necessarily irrational nor artificial prestige-bumping quota to limit to a couple of dozen teams rather than taking hundreds who they think are good.
  - bmir-alum-007 11y ago
    Scaling to something ridiculous like 100x is obviously a nonstarter, but that'll never happen. 1-2 extra companies isn't spreading too thin. In fact, one of Sama's purported goals is to scale up YC several times while retaining it's core culture. It's hardish to do because investing/mentorship is analogous to a lifestyle business model, but it's not impossible. It won't be exactly the same, but it won't suck.
    - smeyer 11y ago
      Yeah, I agree, they obviously might end up adding a couple of extra companies depending on who applies. Especially for a first pass at something, though, it makes sense to aim smaller and grow from there. Ultimately, it's hard to know what the optimal cutoff is, but I think we're on the same page here.

by smeyer 11y ago

bmir-alum-007 11y ago

Contrarian doubt, climate change denial-style. Do you work for the coal and tobacco industries? ;) Cutting off one or two stellar founder teams to meet some artificially-low quotas is a lose-lose proposition: awesome founders don't get to meet other awesome founders, awesome founders don't get a chance to pitch awesome investors and so on. Limited flexibility is common-sense, irrational rigidity is value-destroying.

smeyer 11y ago
The assumption is that Y Combinator thinks that they're providing value through resources like mentorship, and that if they spread those resources too thin, they'll reduce the odds of producing a billion dollar company (or some similar metric). Sure, that limit may be flexible a bit one way or the other way based on the quality of the applicants, but it's neither necessarily irrational nor artificial prestige-bumping quota to limit to a couple of dozen teams rather than taking hundreds who they think are good.
- bmir-alum-007 11y ago
  Scaling to something ridiculous like 100x is obviously a nonstarter, but that'll never happen. 1-2 extra companies isn't spreading too thin. In fact, one of Sama's purported goals is to scale up YC several times while retaining it's core culture. It's hardish to do because investing/mentorship is analogous to a lifestyle business model, but it's not impossible. It won't be exactly the same, but it won't suck.
  - smeyer 11y ago
    Yeah, I agree, they obviously might end up adding a couple of extra companies depending on who applies. Especially for a first pass at something, though, it makes sense to aim smaller and grow from there. Ultimately, it's hard to know what the optimal cutoff is, but I think we're on the same page here.