YC is only arbitrary to the extent we are stupid, and though we certainly do make mistakes in deciding who to fund, we have some fairly smart people expending a

YC is only arbitrary to the extent we are stupid, and though we certainly do make mistakes in deciding who to fund, we have some fairly smart people expending a lot of effort on the problem; I don't think we simply fund whoever's best at tricking us into funding them. True, but an equivalent statement can be made by a decision maker at any other reputable credentialing institution as well. How is this substantively different from what an admissions officer at MIT would say? I think the GP's point is that, for the credential obsessed, "getting into YC" is just the "getting a Rhodes Scholarship" or "getting a Supreme Court clerkship" for our milieu. I don't think that is an indictment of YC in the least. Ultimately the OP's argument boils down to the claim that YC solves the credentials trap by ... transforming starting a startup into a credential, as long as it's done with the YC imprimatur. Hardly a solution at all. (Ironically, there is a solid argument to be made about how your essays have done a huge amount to legitimize the act of founding a startup and embolden erstwhile credential seekers to take that risk, even if it doesn't come with a name brand institution attached to it. The author fails to make that point, though.)