8 ms·

I've noticed a lot of effort over the past year to get more startups interested in YC (deal flow). I'll say what I hear a lot of startup founders saying now --

I've noticed a lot of effort over the past year to get more startups interested in YC (deal flow). I'll say what I hear a lot of startup founders saying now -- YC is just not the same anymore. It's lost its appeal and exclusiveness factor. People are just turned off from it. I hope some of the YC team reads this comment and takes heed.

wtvanhest 10y ago
I have to agree. I applied to YC a few years back, failed, and subsequently shut down the business. If I ever start another company, I doubt highly that I would apply to YC. I'm not even really sure why. I just don't equate it with prestige anymore.
- brilliantcode 10y ago
  It's probably due to the higher number of YC backed companies that it's losing that exclusive nature coupled with the market correction in the startup labor market-people are becoming increasingly less obsessed with playing lottery with their time and more likely to bootstrap to control their own destiny or find a stable job-we've seen enough of what "acquisition" really means.
zitterbewegung 10y ago
Can you recommend somewhere else then?
- dlo 10y ago
  An overlooked alternative is to: 1) Reduce your burn rate. 2) Save up enough money to live off of for a year. 3) Bootstrap your startup off your savings. I am going to make a guess that many of the strongest startups will be produced from this procedure. Getting funding, from YC or elsewhere, has a way of changing your startup in a way that makes it much less likely to succeed. They have said so in fact -- they want you to fail quickly.
  - quadcore 10y ago
    They have said so in fact -- they want you to fail quickly. That doesn't make you more likely to fail though. Quite the opposite on the long run.
    - brilliantcode 10y ago
      It dramatically changes how you run a business when people who invest in your startup treat it like an ICO (initial coin offering)-"if my 1,000,000 shares today is worth a cent imagine when I find another dumbass to buy it for a few dollars in a few quarters and I sell half to cover my initial investment and let it run I'll be rich". You aren't in the business of solving problems and making money anymore but how to inflate share price as quickly as possible by focusing on KPI that will get other suckers wet.
    - andrewprock 10y ago
      "That doesn't make you more likely to fail though" Actually, it does. They want you to fail quickly so they can (in)validate your initial business plan. But business plans for start ups that don't fail quickly often evolve through one or more pivots. For example, see slack and twitter.
      - dlo 10y ago
        Instagram also comes to mind.
  - saycheese 10y ago
    As long as the timing of the failure does not impact the potiental for success, why would you not want to fail sooner than later?
    - dlo 10y ago
      Sorry for the terse reply. I only have time for a short reply. There are two ways of thinking about a problem. And they both are important: 1) Why wouldn't this work? 2) How can we make it work? When you get funding, it's mostly about 1 and not so much about 2. I am not sure that Instagram would have survived receiving funding. https://backchannel.com/why-instagram-worked-45dbfeaa37c8#.1yzo3ceql https://backchannel.com/why-instagram-worked-45dbfeaa37c8#.1... Another aspect of it that I don't really want to go into right now... when an outsider looks at your company, they don't really understand what's going on. But they do have a bunch of rules of thumb that they like. They may or may not apply to your company. But in their minds, you're a bad company if you do not adhere to them. VCs admit to thinking this way. They call it "pattern matching."
- keithwhor 10y ago
  AngelPad [1] is probably the only "top tier" highly exclusive accelerator program left. All of the rest have (entirely reasonably) scaled as businesses. At ~12 companies per batch you won't get a more personalized experience. Thomas Korte and Carine Magescas care deeply about their founders and the entire experience is very, very personal - I can't recommend them enough. [1] https://angelpad.org https://angelpad.org
- rpedela 10y ago
  Techstars is one of the best accelerators and they still have about 10 companies per batch. They have expanded beyond the original location in Boulder which is how they have chosen to scale rather than having 100s of companies in one location. http://www.techstars.com/companies/ http://www.techstars.com/companies/
- forgotmysn 10y ago
  there are a lot of specialized, quality accelerators out there. Alchemist, Launchpad, HAX, River, etc.
dyarosla 10y ago
I think you nailed it when you said exclusiveness: with so many companies per batch, there's less incentive for a startup to be one of the hundreds of companies in the YC portfolio now over any other VC firm. Yes, YC carries some brand weight still, but with less of the benefits it looked to have had before.
- brilliantcode 10y ago
  I think the underlying issue is a misalignment of interest between YC and startup founders but not exclusive to YC but to all Venture Capitalists: you are nothing but one of YC's many hedged call options where they have a good chance of recouping the investment where as you really cannot time travel or demand YC pay you for the time wasted. To me YC was a largely branding move. It's fashionable to be able to say "yeah we are YC backed". Too many people in the industry are so caught up with being a "Startup" that they forget that they are just like any other "Businesses" but with far less control over your own destiny and even far less likely to win much money than working at a large company where you have high probability of becoming a millionaire in the same amount of time you spent on your startup. People are biased and self select their dumb luck as insight that gives them an edge which obviously does not translate or is repeatable-take a look at the graveyard, techcrunch won't get any views reporting anything but hyped up PR pieces.
  - mwseibel 10y ago
    I'm not sure I understand your point here. I'm currently working very hard with Adora (my co-group partner) to support the companies in our YC group. Advice, office hours, motivation, community build, and general availability. Are you saying that this work is simply a branding exercise? If so now that the application process if over - why am I not on vacation?
    - taytus 10y ago
      Branding for the companies. I guess that what he meant.
    - dilemma 10y ago
saycheese 10y ago
Agree, as someone that's applied to YC multiple times in the past, I've decided that I will not be applying because I increasingly feel that there's a disconnect between YC's orginal purpose and what it's become.
- mwseibel 10y ago
  Do you mind elaborating on what that change of purpose? As a two-time alum and now a partner my goal is to preserve YC's goal of supporting early stage founders. How do you think our goal has changed and what thoughts do you have on reversing that change?
  - mildbow 10y ago
    not parent, but here's my off the cuff take 1) the batch sizes might have something to do with it i.e. larger batch sizes don't foster the same community feel as smaller ones. I think maybe ~20 might be the sweet spot. 2) Current leaders don't have as much of a "visionary/thoughtleader/mentor" feel that pg used to. Don't get me wrong, they seem to be super nice and relatable, but don't give off the same vibe of wisdom/hard core technical skills. hth
  - saycheese 10y ago
    Thanks for asking, it's a few things, most of which are most likely a bias on my part. (1) YC has a bias against solo founders; research shows this is not a signal of future success and to me it feels like I'm giving up 17-53.5% of a venture just to get in; YC gets 7% of any venture it funds and YC requires a cofounder have at least 10% equity, but suggest going 50/50. (2) I personally don't agree with YC doing R&D and feel like this is YC admitting the yield it's getting from backing startups is under performing it doing its own thing, which to me is not a good signal. (3) Majority of YC's billion dollar startups have all gone through a single VC; why not just deal with them directly? (4) YC should focus on enabling mentors to expand it's deal flow. (5) YC should have campus within 60-miles of the Bay Area with free housing, food, super-speed internet, etc. so startups don't have to spend the funds on commodities like this and are able to focus on growing. Free healthcare for a year for founders would be impressive too. (7) I'm opinionated, largely do startups to learn, not be the next billionaire; personally, done more startups than 99% of founders, do it full-time, and have spent 15-mins plus mentoring 1000s of founders. (8) YC should set the precedent for making the Bay Area not be the center of the universe for startups. (9) I miss PG. __ (Above are just a few of the reasons.)
edblarney 10y ago
There's authenticity in all of these comments. BUT - if you're going to take $100K Angel from someone - who would you prefer it to be? YC is still the top. You get 'some brand', 'access to a lot of investors' - and some residual benefits from network access. That's more than you get with most entities. So if you're not 'hooked up' into investor networks, or are from an area that does not have good 'startup zen' - then YC is still probably the top choice. And FYI I have no specific love for YC, and not relationship to them. And yes - though I think they are pretty good, I also think they aren possibly a little 'over-hyped', but that's not their fault. (Please don't ban me :) )
Alex3917 10y ago
> YC is just not the same anymore This is probably a good thing given that the original value proposition (accelerating web startups) makes zero sense today. Twelve years ago there were an enormous number of people connected to the web but not much good content. The network was primed for hyper virality, so the only viable strategies were to raise huge amounts of money on a deck or an MVP, or else take on five cofounders (and later fire three of them). Any other strategy and you'd get completely destroyed. These days this is no longer the case. The web is already saturated with content, so there is zero risk of having a competitor's site go super viral overnight. And the fact that consumer expectations are much higher and you need to design for 3+ screen sizes means it takes much longer to reach product market fit. Being bootstrapped is no longer a huge disadvantage. Neither is not being a genius, the tools are all easy now. There are still going to be new startups that reach the size of Facebook, but they're going to get there by grinding, not overnight by using some party trick. The new YC makes a lot more sense in this new landscape. Most other investors are still looking for startups that fit the pattern of Facebook and Twitter, and these are the ones who are going to lose all their money.
- WikipediasBad 10y ago
  This is a complete Non sequitur. Yes, all of what you said is correct about a different landscape, but none of that concludes to why YC has to be less prestigious, less exclusive, take many more startups, and make the entire process as impersonable as possible so that they can make the most money from it like a big corporation. YC is just not the same anymore, not in the way you are talking about, in the bad way.
  - Alex3917 10y ago
    > none of that concludes to why YC has to be less prestigious In 2005 YC's thesis was that the smartest technical people would make the best founders. That's why when you applied for startup school, they asked you what your favorite technologies were. And while there were certainly Java people there, the expected answers were clearly Python, Lisp, or Haskell. The reason it may feel less exclusive now is because they're now actively encouraging people to apply rather than (arguably) actively discouraging people from applying. But that's because A) they know the original thesis was wrong B) you can basically now acquire the technical skills needed to build a startup by spending a few hours watching YouTube video about Django, so for most startups there isn't really any advantage conferred by being some sort of technical genius. While it's true there are more startups now, it's also much harder to get in. Back in 2005 - 2007, probably a third of the startups went out of business without ever even launching. And it was expected that another third would never get any users. The stuff that would get you funded in 2006 not only wouldn't get you an interview today, it wouldn't even get you the email saying you were close to getting an interview.
forgotmysn 10y ago
Agreed. I've worked for a couple YC companies, and founders have complained that its really difficult to post jobs on HN, that pitch day is a wash because of so many companies pitching, and access to mentors has evaporated/minimized. I believe the Accelerator model can scale, 500SU is a good example, but I'm not sure the value that YC offers can scale.
- mwseibel 10y ago
  I'd like to know more about your experience - feel free to email me at michael@ycombinator.com
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
SkyMarshal 10y ago
>I'll say what I hear a lot of startup founders saying now -- YC is just not the same anymore. It's lost its appeal and exclusiveness factor. People are just turned off from it. Surely they're also saying why as well? Not much help without the why, otherwise just hearsay.
tpae 10y ago
I've applied to YC several times (more than 4, over the course of 7+ years). I never got accepted. In fact, I've never encountered a human during the entire application process. Everything was very automated: submit an application, then rejection with zero feedback. In my opinion, early startups are very fragile in nature. The team, product, and goals have to be aligned in order to make progress and move forward. Having rejected from YC without any feedback is equivalent to "not worth our time" If I could do all my startups again, I'd definitely avoid applying to YC. In most cases, rejection is so hurtful enough, that even strong teams fall apart. Sometimes, even with proper validation from the market, having that rejection is a big burden on team morale. I think instead of focusing on RFS, YC should re-evaluate their business model. Application process shouldn't be based on acceptance/rejection, but rather a process. Startups should be encouraged to apply, and continue to update their progress with YC. YC can monitor these startups, and offer guidance if deemed necessary. It creates a record of their progress, and how they are doing over time. Evaluations should not focus on a given point in time, but rather as a lifecycle of the team, product and goals. If I could show you what I had to go through, to get to that stage, and is seeking your help, would you lend me a hand?
- pedalpete 10y ago
  I think this comment "In most cases, rejection is so hurtful enough, that even strong teams fall apart." may hint at the success of the vetting process. If your team can't withstand not getting into YC, I'd suggest it may not be able to stand the rigors of the start-up process. I'm in a similar boat as you having applied a few times, and never been accepted, but that never remotely affected progress on the projects.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    The dissonance in your comment is quite strong. On the one hand we're to believe that applying and being rejected resulting in a team falling apart is proof the system works, on the other, applying and being rejected caused you to keep going. Doesn't that second case prove that the evaluation doesn't work? Personally I feel that if you're going to do a startup not getting accepted into an accelerator is the same as not winning the lottery so assume you won't get in and try anyway if you can do so without spending a lot of time (which is a finite resource). On the other hand I can see how people from various countries with an environment less geared towards start-ups would benefit from being in YC to the point that if they can't get in the whole thing is lost for them. I wouldn't take that as proof that the vetting process works.
erichocean 10y ago
> People are just turned off from it. Maybe it's because YC pivoted from startups to social justice?

wtvanhest 10y ago

I have to agree. I applied to YC a few years back, failed, and subsequently shut down the business. If I ever start another company, I doubt highly that I would apply to YC. I'm not even really sure why. I just don't equate it with prestige anymore.

brilliantcode 10y ago
It's probably due to the higher number of YC backed companies that it's losing that exclusive nature coupled with the market correction in the startup labor market-people are becoming increasingly less obsessed with playing lottery with their time and more likely to bootstrap to control their own destiny or find a stable job-we've seen enough of what "acquisition" really means.

zitterbewegung 10y ago

Can you recommend somewhere else then?

dlo 10y ago
An overlooked alternative is to: 1) Reduce your burn rate. 2) Save up enough money to live off of for a year. 3) Bootstrap your startup off your savings. I am going to make a guess that many of the strongest startups will be produced from this procedure. Getting funding, from YC or elsewhere, has a way of changing your startup in a way that makes it much less likely to succeed. They have said so in fact -- they want you to fail quickly.
- quadcore 10y ago
  They have said so in fact -- they want you to fail quickly. That doesn't make you more likely to fail though. Quite the opposite on the long run.
  - brilliantcode 10y ago
    It dramatically changes how you run a business when people who invest in your startup treat it like an ICO (initial coin offering)-"if my 1,000,000 shares today is worth a cent imagine when I find another dumbass to buy it for a few dollars in a few quarters and I sell half to cover my initial investment and let it run I'll be rich". You aren't in the business of solving problems and making money anymore but how to inflate share price as quickly as possible by focusing on KPI that will get other suckers wet.
  - andrewprock 10y ago
    "That doesn't make you more likely to fail though" Actually, it does. They want you to fail quickly so they can (in)validate your initial business plan. But business plans for start ups that don't fail quickly often evolve through one or more pivots. For example, see slack and twitter.
    - dlo 10y ago
      Instagram also comes to mind.
- saycheese 10y ago
  As long as the timing of the failure does not impact the potiental for success, why would you not want to fail sooner than later?
  - dlo 10y ago
    Sorry for the terse reply. I only have time for a short reply. There are two ways of thinking about a problem. And they both are important: 1) Why wouldn't this work? 2) How can we make it work? When you get funding, it's mostly about 1 and not so much about 2. I am not sure that Instagram would have survived receiving funding. https://backchannel.com/why-instagram-worked-45dbfeaa37c8#.1yzo3ceql https://backchannel.com/why-instagram-worked-45dbfeaa37c8#.1... Another aspect of it that I don't really want to go into right now... when an outsider looks at your company, they don't really understand what's going on. But they do have a bunch of rules of thumb that they like. They may or may not apply to your company. But in their minds, you're a bad company if you do not adhere to them. VCs admit to thinking this way. They call it "pattern matching."
keithwhor 10y ago
AngelPad [1] is probably the only "top tier" highly exclusive accelerator program left. All of the rest have (entirely reasonably) scaled as businesses. At ~12 companies per batch you won't get a more personalized experience. Thomas Korte and Carine Magescas care deeply about their founders and the entire experience is very, very personal - I can't recommend them enough. [1] https://angelpad.org https://angelpad.org
rpedela 10y ago
Techstars is one of the best accelerators and they still have about 10 companies per batch. They have expanded beyond the original location in Boulder which is how they have chosen to scale rather than having 100s of companies in one location. http://www.techstars.com/companies/ http://www.techstars.com/companies/
forgotmysn 10y ago
there are a lot of specialized, quality accelerators out there. Alchemist, Launchpad, HAX, River, etc.

dyarosla 10y ago

I think you nailed it when you said exclusiveness: with so many companies per batch, there's less incentive for a startup to be one of the hundreds of companies in the YC portfolio now over any other VC firm. Yes, YC carries some brand weight still, but with less of the benefits it looked to have had before.

brilliantcode 10y ago
I think the underlying issue is a misalignment of interest between YC and startup founders but not exclusive to YC but to all Venture Capitalists: you are nothing but one of YC's many hedged call options where they have a good chance of recouping the investment where as you really cannot time travel or demand YC pay you for the time wasted. To me YC was a largely branding move. It's fashionable to be able to say "yeah we are YC backed". Too many people in the industry are so caught up with being a "Startup" that they forget that they are just like any other "Businesses" but with far less control over your own destiny and even far less likely to win much money than working at a large company where you have high probability of becoming a millionaire in the same amount of time you spent on your startup. People are biased and self select their dumb luck as insight that gives them an edge which obviously does not translate or is repeatable-take a look at the graveyard, techcrunch won't get any views reporting anything but hyped up PR pieces.
- mwseibel 10y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your point here. I'm currently working very hard with Adora (my co-group partner) to support the companies in our YC group. Advice, office hours, motivation, community build, and general availability. Are you saying that this work is simply a branding exercise? If so now that the application process if over - why am I not on vacation?
  - taytus 10y ago
    Branding for the companies. I guess that what he meant.
  - dilemma 10y ago

saycheese 10y ago

Agree, as someone that's applied to YC multiple times in the past, I've decided that I will not be applying because I increasingly feel that there's a disconnect between YC's orginal purpose and what it's become.

mwseibel 10y ago
Do you mind elaborating on what that change of purpose? As a two-time alum and now a partner my goal is to preserve YC's goal of supporting early stage founders. How do you think our goal has changed and what thoughts do you have on reversing that change?
- mildbow 10y ago
  not parent, but here's my off the cuff take 1) the batch sizes might have something to do with it i.e. larger batch sizes don't foster the same community feel as smaller ones. I think maybe ~20 might be the sweet spot. 2) Current leaders don't have as much of a "visionary/thoughtleader/mentor" feel that pg used to. Don't get me wrong, they seem to be super nice and relatable, but don't give off the same vibe of wisdom/hard core technical skills. hth
- saycheese 10y ago
  Thanks for asking, it's a few things, most of which are most likely a bias on my part. (1) YC has a bias against solo founders; research shows this is not a signal of future success and to me it feels like I'm giving up 17-53.5% of a venture just to get in; YC gets 7% of any venture it funds and YC requires a cofounder have at least 10% equity, but suggest going 50/50. (2) I personally don't agree with YC doing R&D and feel like this is YC admitting the yield it's getting from backing startups is under performing it doing its own thing, which to me is not a good signal. (3) Majority of YC's billion dollar startups have all gone through a single VC; why not just deal with them directly? (4) YC should focus on enabling mentors to expand it's deal flow. (5) YC should have campus within 60-miles of the Bay Area with free housing, food, super-speed internet, etc. so startups don't have to spend the funds on commodities like this and are able to focus on growing. Free healthcare for a year for founders would be impressive too. (7) I'm opinionated, largely do startups to learn, not be the next billionaire; personally, done more startups than 99% of founders, do it full-time, and have spent 15-mins plus mentoring 1000s of founders. (8) YC should set the precedent for making the Bay Area not be the center of the universe for startups. (9) I miss PG. __ (Above are just a few of the reasons.)

edblarney 10y ago

There's authenticity in all of these comments. BUT - if you're going to take $100K Angel from someone - who would you prefer it to be? YC is still the top. You get 'some brand', 'access to a lot of investors' - and some residual benefits from network access. That's more than you get with most entities. So if you're not 'hooked up' into investor networks, or are from an area that does not have good 'startup zen' - then YC is still probably the top choice. And FYI I have no specific love for YC, and not relationship to them. And yes - though I think they are pretty good, I also think they aren possibly a little 'over-hyped', but that's not their fault. (Please don't ban me :) )

Alex3917 10y ago

> YC is just not the same anymore This is probably a good thing given that the original value proposition (accelerating web startups) makes zero sense today. Twelve years ago there were an enormous number of people connected to the web but not much good content. The network was primed for hyper virality, so the only viable strategies were to raise huge amounts of money on a deck or an MVP, or else take on five cofounders (and later fire three of them). Any other strategy and you'd get completely destroyed. These days this is no longer the case. The web is already saturated with content, so there is zero risk of having a competitor's site go super viral overnight. And the fact that consumer expectations are much higher and you need to design for 3+ screen sizes means it takes much longer to reach product market fit. Being bootstrapped is no longer a huge disadvantage. Neither is not being a genius, the tools are all easy now. There are still going to be new startups that reach the size of Facebook, but they're going to get there by grinding, not overnight by using some party trick. The new YC makes a lot more sense in this new landscape. Most other investors are still looking for startups that fit the pattern of Facebook and Twitter, and these are the ones who are going to lose all their money.

WikipediasBad 10y ago
This is a complete Non sequitur. Yes, all of what you said is correct about a different landscape, but none of that concludes to why YC has to be less prestigious, less exclusive, take many more startups, and make the entire process as impersonable as possible so that they can make the most money from it like a big corporation. YC is just not the same anymore, not in the way you are talking about, in the bad way.
- Alex3917 10y ago
  > none of that concludes to why YC has to be less prestigious In 2005 YC's thesis was that the smartest technical people would make the best founders. That's why when you applied for startup school, they asked you what your favorite technologies were. And while there were certainly Java people there, the expected answers were clearly Python, Lisp, or Haskell. The reason it may feel less exclusive now is because they're now actively encouraging people to apply rather than (arguably) actively discouraging people from applying. But that's because A) they know the original thesis was wrong B) you can basically now acquire the technical skills needed to build a startup by spending a few hours watching YouTube video about Django, so for most startups there isn't really any advantage conferred by being some sort of technical genius. While it's true there are more startups now, it's also much harder to get in. Back in 2005 - 2007, probably a third of the startups went out of business without ever even launching. And it was expected that another third would never get any users. The stuff that would get you funded in 2006 not only wouldn't get you an interview today, it wouldn't even get you the email saying you were close to getting an interview.

forgotmysn 10y ago

Agreed. I've worked for a couple YC companies, and founders have complained that its really difficult to post jobs on HN, that pitch day is a wash because of so many companies pitching, and access to mentors has evaporated/minimized. I believe the Accelerator model can scale, 500SU is a good example, but I'm not sure the value that YC offers can scale.

mwseibel 10y ago
I'd like to know more about your experience - feel free to email me at michael@ycombinator.com

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

SkyMarshal 10y ago

>I'll say what I hear a lot of startup founders saying now -- YC is just not the same anymore. It's lost its appeal and exclusiveness factor. People are just turned off from it. Surely they're also saying why as well? Not much help without the why, otherwise just hearsay.

tpae 10y ago

I've applied to YC several times (more than 4, over the course of 7+ years). I never got accepted. In fact, I've never encountered a human during the entire application process. Everything was very automated: submit an application, then rejection with zero feedback. In my opinion, early startups are very fragile in nature. The team, product, and goals have to be aligned in order to make progress and move forward. Having rejected from YC without any feedback is equivalent to "not worth our time" If I could do all my startups again, I'd definitely avoid applying to YC. In most cases, rejection is so hurtful enough, that even strong teams fall apart. Sometimes, even with proper validation from the market, having that rejection is a big burden on team morale. I think instead of focusing on RFS, YC should re-evaluate their business model. Application process shouldn't be based on acceptance/rejection, but rather a process. Startups should be encouraged to apply, and continue to update their progress with YC. YC can monitor these startups, and offer guidance if deemed necessary. It creates a record of their progress, and how they are doing over time. Evaluations should not focus on a given point in time, but rather as a lifecycle of the team, product and goals. If I could show you what I had to go through, to get to that stage, and is seeking your help, would you lend me a hand?

pedalpete 10y ago
I think this comment "In most cases, rejection is so hurtful enough, that even strong teams fall apart." may hint at the success of the vetting process. If your team can't withstand not getting into YC, I'd suggest it may not be able to stand the rigors of the start-up process. I'm in a similar boat as you having applied a few times, and never been accepted, but that never remotely affected progress on the projects.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  The dissonance in your comment is quite strong. On the one hand we're to believe that applying and being rejected resulting in a team falling apart is proof the system works, on the other, applying and being rejected caused you to keep going. Doesn't that second case prove that the evaluation doesn't work? Personally I feel that if you're going to do a startup not getting accepted into an accelerator is the same as not winning the lottery so assume you won't get in and try anyway if you can do so without spending a lot of time (which is a finite resource). On the other hand I can see how people from various countries with an environment less geared towards start-ups would benefit from being in YC to the point that if they can't get in the whole thing is lost for them. I wouldn't take that as proof that the vetting process works.

erichocean 10y ago

> People are just turned off from it. Maybe it's because YC pivoted from startups to social justice?