5 ms·
We can handle about 20 startups per (full-time) partner. Maybe 25. So with 10 partners advising startups we could get up to 200-250 startups simultaneously.
by pg 15y ago
We can handle about 20 startups per (full-time) partner. Maybe 25. So with 10 partners advising startups we could get up to 200-250 startups simultaneously. Not that we expect to anytime soon; the point is just that if there is a limit, it's not immediately in front of us.
- edanm 15y agoHave you considered taking on far more teams? You're growing from batch to batch, but if you could reach 200 startups by your estimates, why not grow even faster? Is it just a matter of "slow and steady"?
- pg 15y agoOur growth is entirely a function of the growth in applications. So we don't have much choice about our growth rate. To grow faster we'd have to fund people we thought would fail, and to grow slower we'd have to reject people we thought would succeed. Either would be painful.
- netcan 15y agoWas the borderline rejected application in your 1st or 2nd years indistinguishable form this year's, in terms of quality?
- pg 15y agoThe quality of the applicants has been slowly increasing. But we are also slowly becoming less credulous.
- robryan 15y agoAn interesting metric to look at would be how many borderline rejected founders are going on to achieve valuation x compared with companies funded. Of course though the YC program itself introduces another variable into a measure like this.
- Jun8 15y agoBut wouldn't that also "dilute" the YC brand?
- dgunn 15y agoI think I expected the number to be in that range, It just seems large so I just didn't want to seem crazy. But that being the case, should I expect to be 1 of 65 in the next batch? 1 of 70? ;) Ok. That was tricky. I'll ask it in a less loaded form. Should we expect 65 to 70 to be the cut off for the winter session?