4 ms·

There are a lot of legitimate criticisms to be made of YC and of VCs in general (please do not take this as me going "there is nothing wrong in the VC world at

There are a lot of legitimate criticisms to be made of YC and of VCs in general (please do not take this as me going "there is nothing wrong in the VC world at all", because I absolutely do not believe that!), but I don't think excessive academic elitism is one of them. If anything, I think they're quite a bit better about avoiding that elitism than the average you'll find among organizations of comparable wealth and power (compare top law firms, leadership of more traditional companies, politicians, etc). This isn't my strongest opinion - I've never done any proper formal study of the question - but your impressions contradict my own experience living in that world. I used to be part of the leadership team for a YC company. Here's where the four YC founders I know off the top of my head went to school: SUNY, Oxford, Epitech, Tufts. Only Oxford among those is truly elite, though the other three are good schools. The one who went to Oxford (Harj Taggar) is a bit of an odd one out here, since they were a partner with YC itself first before founding the company that I know them from. Granted, three of these were founders many years ago, so perhaps this has changed, but one (the Tufts alum) got funding only about a year ago. I looked up a few other founders that are second- or third-degree connections and found the same: a handful of truly elite schools, a peak in A-tier-but-not-truly-elite schools, and a handful of no-name schools like my own alma mater. I expect that that's a reasonably representative distribution of where you find extremely smart people, and especially smart+motivated ones. As for this bit: >> And often those who did get in went to Stanford, Harvard, etc. and don't even have a product - sometimes they don't even know what they're going to build yet. YC is pretty explicit that they try to pick founders, not ideas, most of the time. That approach is all over the Startup School videos, for example; they don't exactly make a secret of it. >> but the numbers I've read online that most VCs want to see are not realistic - or if we were hitting those numbers I wouldn't even need a VC, we would be able to fund our own expansion. Growth demands, both realistic and unrealistic, are a much fairer criticism IMO. They're the primary reason I haven't sought VC funding personally (from YC or otherwise). Out of curiosity, I'd love to know more about what you're doing - I checked your HN profile but it didn't have a link or anything.

april192024 3y ago
>>> "YC is pretty explicit that they try to pick founders, not ideas, most of the time. That approach is all over the Startup School videos, for example; they don't exactly make a secret of it." If Y Combinator truly prioritizes founders over ideas, as indicated in their Startup School videos, repeated rejections might suggest a fundamental mismatch. If you haven't been accepted after one or two tries, it may be a signal that you're not the type of founder they're looking to fund. People do not change that much usually.
- dang 3y ago
  It's exactly the other way around. You'd be right if YC were perfect at assessing founders every time, but of course they're not. Applying repeatedly gives you a chance to prove that they got you wrong the first time (and the second, and the third, and so on, if need be). Not only does this work, it's the majority case (I just double checked this). Most founders that YC funds are repeat applicants. Applying repeatedly demonstrates persistence, which is one of the qualities YC looks for. Better still, if you can show continued progress since your previous application, that demonstrates resourcefulness, another core quality. Repeated applications can move the needle on what sort of founder YC thinks you are. Especially if you were a borderline call the last time—keeping going, and applying again, is a way to get on the other side of the line.
  - april192024 3y ago
    YC frequently heralds persistence as the most reliable indicator of future success. However, a closer look at their selection practices reveals a profound contradiction. Despite their public endorsement of this trait, YC often rejects applicants who demonstrate true persistence by reapplying after initial failures. In contrast, they appear to favor individuals with prestigious academic or corporate backgrounds—those who might be perceived as career opportunists lacking deep commitment to their ventures—over genuinely dedicated founders. This pattern not only questions the sincerity of YC's stated values but also suggests a broader inconsistency. If such a discrepancy exists in their evaluation of persistence, one can reasonably doubt the authenticity of other virtues YC promotes. This insight casts a shadow over the overall integrity of their selection criteria, hinting that what YC publicizes may not always align with their actual priorities.

april192024 3y ago

>>> "YC is pretty explicit that they try to pick founders, not ideas, most of the time. That approach is all over the Startup School videos, for example; they don't exactly make a secret of it." If Y Combinator truly prioritizes founders over ideas, as indicated in their Startup School videos, repeated rejections might suggest a fundamental mismatch. If you haven't been accepted after one or two tries, it may be a signal that you're not the type of founder they're looking to fund. People do not change that much usually.

dang 3y ago
It's exactly the other way around. You'd be right if YC were perfect at assessing founders every time, but of course they're not. Applying repeatedly gives you a chance to prove that they got you wrong the first time (and the second, and the third, and so on, if need be). Not only does this work, it's the majority case (I just double checked this). Most founders that YC funds are repeat applicants. Applying repeatedly demonstrates persistence, which is one of the qualities YC looks for. Better still, if you can show continued progress since your previous application, that demonstrates resourcefulness, another core quality. Repeated applications can move the needle on what sort of founder YC thinks you are. Especially if you were a borderline call the last time—keeping going, and applying again, is a way to get on the other side of the line.
- april192024 3y ago
  YC frequently heralds persistence as the most reliable indicator of future success. However, a closer look at their selection practices reveals a profound contradiction. Despite their public endorsement of this trait, YC often rejects applicants who demonstrate true persistence by reapplying after initial failures. In contrast, they appear to favor individuals with prestigious academic or corporate backgrounds—those who might be perceived as career opportunists lacking deep commitment to their ventures—over genuinely dedicated founders. This pattern not only questions the sincerity of YC's stated values but also suggests a broader inconsistency. If such a discrepancy exists in their evaluation of persistence, one can reasonably doubt the authenticity of other virtues YC promotes. This insight casts a shadow over the overall integrity of their selection criteria, hinting that what YC publicizes may not always align with their actual priorities.