I don't disagree with what you're saying. If I were to sum up why YC might have succeeded like it did, I'd say that pg is great at pattern recognition and is b

I don't disagree with what you're saying. If I were to sum up why YC might have succeeded like it did, I'd say that pg is great at pattern recognition and is better than most at figuring out who might become a great entrepreneur vs. who is just posturing, which increases (but doesn't at all guarantee) his chances of finding great founders capable of building great companies. Of course, things played out pretty well for pg, but with less luck perhaps it might've taken a longer time for them to find their Airbnb/Dropbox, or perhaps Drew Houston and the three co-founders of Airbnb might have failed several times before hitting their respective home runs. In which case TechStars and 500 Startups (admitted copycats of YC) might never have come into existence. pg's knack for identifying great founders doesn't guarantee that everyone who gets into YC is going to be "great," just like there are probably plenty of not-so-capable people in Harvard who somehow still managed to get in. But I would posit that the % of potential great founders is significantly higher at YC than at other accelerators (due to brand, prestige, whatever), which in the short run doesn't mean much but which over time will be greatly and increasingly to their advantage.