Does anyone else think that these unoriginal, doomed-from-the-start startups are a direct result of funding institutions looking for founders that appear really

Does anyone else think that these unoriginal, doomed-from-the-start startups are a direct result of funding institutions looking for founders that appear really good "on paper"? You know, experience with this BigCo, a degree at that IvySchool, etc. Even YC may be becoming guilty of this, as it seems like a top school brand is a prerequisite. Or the more sinister metric, do you have growth? PG wrote that startup=growth, and that growth is the all-encompasing metric. Might this incentivize some prestige-seeking 'entrepreneurs' to do things that don't scale like pumping money into convincing users to join their website, or making fake accounts? Not that growth and a founder's unsustainable touch early on aren't excellent things for which to strive. But in any system in which there is prestige to be gained, there will be those who will match patterns and fool the heuristics of the gatekeepers.