3 ms·
My background going into the program was purely technology based. I had a very limited view of what it actually took to start a company. When the program starte
by awolf 17y ago
My background going into the program was purely technology based. I had a very limited view of what it actually took to start a company. When the program started I was so busy with development that the time spent in sessions seemed like a much bigger sacrifice than the $800.00.
Looking back I can firmly say I was clueless. As a sole founder I was constantly busy, but I wasn't focusing on what mattered. I was working in a vacuum with blinders on. Through direct interaction with dozens of successful CEOs I was able to start to see the forest through the trees. I'm now focusing on 1) the business development and partnership creation that my company needs to get off the ground 2) customer development to ensure that what I have built is a product that user's will buy (better late than never). Coding is how I procrastinate.
Also, the mentors are very accessible and willing to help. When I had a question about how to handle an investor I was able to shoot a couple emails off and get advice in less than an hour. I'm meeting two of the SD mentors for lunch next week.
Finally, I think the long term value is camaraderie with fellow founders. It's a great feeling to know a dozen other people you can talk to that are solving the same problems as you. I came out of the program with at least half a dozen super-meaningful connections. You can't put a price tag on that.
Every rose has its thorns. The institute was invaluable for me but I'd definitely say its not for everyone. Any description of this program and who it's for should contain a very clear statement of one fact that was NOT made perfectly clear at the beginning:
You must incorporate as a C or S corp during the term or they will ask you to leave the program. The pressure to incorporate starts about half way through, leading up to the "Incorporation" session. About a third of the class dropped out at this point either because they weren't ready or because they objected on philosophical grounds. FI is taking steps to make this clearer to new applicants but since this post didn't mention it I thought I'd tack it on.
There is a new session starting up in San Diego pretty soon. If you're serious about starting a company then you should definitely consider it.
- vdibart 17y agoWith regards to incorporation, I would only say the word "pressure" (at least in NY) might be too strong. They put it out there and make it clear - incorporate or clear out of the way. But in no way do they force you to do something you don't think you're ready for. As for awolf's statement that it wasn't clear that it was a requirement, it's obviously meaningless to refute that subjectively. I will say that there's an entire section in the Founder's Guide (which you have access to once you're accepted) covering incorporation. The very first line is: "Forming a company before the end of the semester and issuing the Bonus Pool Warrant is required to graduate." Granted, that section might have been edited mid-year, but I remember understanding the point clearly before entering, mostly because I had an LLC and knew I'd have to convert it. It might suffer a bit from being right after the "Fundraising" section, which I'll assume most founders fast-forward to and reread over and over :)
- awolf 17y agoThe main complaint many of my classmates had was that the guide said "before the end of the semester" yet we were told we needed to be incorporated one week after the Incorporation session (half way through) or we would have to step aside. FI has been iterating their process as they go along. I'm glad to hear there wasn't confusion in the New York session.
- vdibart 17y agoI hear you. I'm also glad to hear they're tweaking the formula. I think we can agree it's not only fair but important to set the incorporation requirement a little earlier in the session. From the Institute's perspective, there are some (although not many) who saw the program as an easy means to gain access to mentors and investors for little or no commitment on their part. As such, they have no intention of graduating. Forcing them to decide sooner weeds them out. From the founder's perspective, those not planning on graduating detract from the overall experience because they're not contributing positively. In some cases they're actually they're making it difficult for others. In NY I found the program started to become more relevant to me as the less-committed and less-advanced founders started dropping out.