3 ms·

This is a misconception. The YC application is actually a great leveler because applications are evaluated by other founders through a community where building

by garry 7y ago

This is a misconception. The YC application is actually a great leveler because applications are evaluated by other founders through a community where building things for people is prized over pure credentialism. VCs in general do have a terrible and unfair bias for Stanford. Frankly I went to Stanford. In 2008 when I did YC and started raising our seed round, VCs asked me why I even did YC because I had a Stanford degree. I have seen so many people with no traditional background who succeed through the program.

breck 7y ago
> VCs asked me why I even did YC because I had a Stanford degree. That's interesting. I expect that perception has changed now, but am curious. > The YC application is actually a great leveler because applications are evaluated by other founders through a community where building things for people is prized over pure credentialism. I think it is a very good leveler, but there is a lot of causation going on when you go to a place like Stanford (or Duke, where I went). If you went to a top engineering school, you have a lot more exposure to people that can build things. If I didn't meet folks who encouraged me to seriously get into programming and engineering my senior year, I wouldn't have taken the first steps down the road that led me to YC. I think SUS is a great leveler, because it's giving folks anywhere and everywhere access to positive peer mentors who can do for them what my classmates did for me. Am very excited to see where that goes.
sudosteph 7y ago
I've talked to people within YC who say just the opposite - that Stanford has a special relationship with YC. I've seen a nearly exact copy of a project I pitched to YC get accepted a year later, but this time with Stanford founders. And I'm not using that as a stand-in for elite schools in general. The requirement that founders physically locate themselves the bay is as big a factor as anything. Just because non-traditional people get in sometimes does not mean that there is not still selection bias towards a particular group. If you are so sure about your claims, then you should call for YC to release the data to prove it. Specifically addressing the questions below. 1. What percentage of all founding teams had at least one member who attended Stanford? (Degree not even necessary - just attended at some point) 2. What percentage of all applicants who had a team member with a Stanford connection and got interviews? 3. What percentage of all applicants who had a team member with a Stanford connection got accepted? Edit: Also, in case it wasn't clear - run the same data for any other schools with a high volume of applicants. Questions 2 and 3 should be roughly equal if there is no bias. And I'd prefer to see the data over time as well. Doesn't have to be each applicantion period, but at in least groups per year to see if trends changed.

by garry 7y ago

breck 7y ago

> VCs asked me why I even did YC because I had a Stanford degree. That's interesting. I expect that perception has changed now, but am curious. > The YC application is actually a great leveler because applications are evaluated by other founders through a community where building things for people is prized over pure credentialism. I think it is a very good leveler, but there is a lot of causation going on when you go to a place like Stanford (or Duke, where I went). If you went to a top engineering school, you have a lot more exposure to people that can build things. If I didn't meet folks who encouraged me to seriously get into programming and engineering my senior year, I wouldn't have taken the first steps down the road that led me to YC. I think SUS is a great leveler, because it's giving folks anywhere and everywhere access to positive peer mentors who can do for them what my classmates did for me. Am very excited to see where that goes.

sudosteph 7y ago

I've talked to people within YC who say just the opposite - that Stanford has a special relationship with YC. I've seen a nearly exact copy of a project I pitched to YC get accepted a year later, but this time with Stanford founders. And I'm not using that as a stand-in for elite schools in general. The requirement that founders physically locate themselves the bay is as big a factor as anything. Just because non-traditional people get in sometimes does not mean that there is not still selection bias towards a particular group. If you are so sure about your claims, then you should call for YC to release the data to prove it. Specifically addressing the questions below. 1. What percentage of all founding teams had at least one member who attended Stanford? (Degree not even necessary - just attended at some point) 2. What percentage of all applicants who had a team member with a Stanford connection and got interviews? 3. What percentage of all applicants who had a team member with a Stanford connection got accepted? Edit: Also, in case it wasn't clear - run the same data for any other schools with a high volume of applicants. Questions 2 and 3 should be roughly equal if there is no bias. And I'd prefer to see the data over time as well. Doesn't have to be each applicantion period, but at in least groups per year to see if trends changed.