5 ms·

To get to the interview stage: Good college +2 Done with schooling +3 Single Founder -5 No Hackers on Team -4 Mention Lisp +2 Mention Smalltalk +2 Mentio

by vlad 19y ago

To get to the interview stage: Good college +2 Done with schooling +3 Single Founder -5 No Hackers on Team -4 Mention Lisp +2 Mention Smalltalk +2 Mention Python +1 Zero Hackers Willing to Relocate -5 Past or Recent TechCrunch Coverage +2 Past or Recent Mainstream Coverage +2 Google search finds many top blogs or major news sources linking to current or past project +3 Team of hackers previously founded a web startup +1 Team of non-hackers previously founded a web startup +2 Not drinking age -3 Average age 23 to 26 +4 Average age 30 to 35 -1 Average age 36 to 45 -2 Average age older than 45 -10 Knows idea should be a web app +3 Short and sweet application +3 Estimated scores for some companies at the time of application: Xobni 12 (MIT hackers), Auctomatic 13 (No hackers at time of application), Justin.tv 25 (Lots of pluses, no negations) I'd say at 10 you have a good chance at an interview, at 13-15 an excellent chance. This is derived from Paul's writings, speeches, videos, and comments. The actual idea doesn't matter because Paul will either tell you he likes it or recommend changing it during the interview. If you're not done with college, now is the time to say you will focus on the project instead. Again, this is just a rough guide and I have zero qualifications to even write this. After the interview, only your execution matters.

deleted 19y ago
[deleted]
imp 19y ago
I predict that tomorrow someone will take these scores and turn them into a webapp that rates applications. It looks like ycombinatorrater.com is available...
euccastro 19y ago
"Good college +2" seems counter to some of his latest writings. I guess "No Hackers on Team" would be a way greater penalty. I'm curious: why is the bonus for "founded a web startup" higher for a team of non-hackers?
- dcurtis 19y ago
  Yeah, but looking at the Y Combinator funding trends, the majority of their companies that succeed are by founders from "good colleges."
  - jey 19y ago
    Correlation does not imply causation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_caus... Being a motivated high achiever probably correlates well with going to a good college, and with getting into YC.
    - dcurtis 19y ago
      Right, thus going to a good college = +2.
      - falsestprophet 19y ago
        Well whatever the case, your college didn't teach you statistics.
        dcurtis 19y ago
        I completely understand the difference between correlation and causation. But in the grand scheme of things, the human brain is designed to recognize correlation when developing internal rating systems. You would have to be stupid to not automatically give more clout to a graduate of Harvard than to a drop out of some state university. The state university student may or may not be less qualified than the Harvard graduate, but in the vast majority of situations he will be. Even if YC doesn't give "real" points to graduates/students of good universities, just the mere emotional response to reading "harvard" or "yale" or "berkeley" sparks an automatically positive regard for the applicant. Isn't that enough cause? Thus, good college = +2.
        aantix 19y ago
        From the gospel, according to Paul... (September, 2007) "Between the volume of people we judge and the rapid, unequivocal test that's applied to our choices, Y Combinator has been an unprecedented opportunity for learning how to pick winners. One of the most surprising things we've learned is how little it matters where people went to college. I thought I'd already been cured of caring about that. There's nothing like going to grad school at Harvard to cure you of any illusions you might have about the average Harvard undergrad. And yet Y Combinator showed us we were still overestimating people who'd been to elite colleges. We'd interview people from MIT or Harvard or Stanford and sometimes find ourselves thinking: they must be smarter than they seem. It took us a few iterations to learn to trust our senses. Practically everyone thinks that someone who went to MIT or Harvard or Stanford must be smart. Even people who hate you for it believe it. But when you think about what it means to have gone to an elite college, how could this be true? We're talking about a decision made by admissions officers--basically, HR people--based on a cursory examination of a huge pile of depressingly similar applications submitted by seventeen year olds. And what do they have to go on? An easily gamed standardized test; a short essay telling you what the kid thinks you want to hear; an interview with a random alum; a high school record that's largely an index of obedience. Who would rely on such a test?" college = 0
- yters 19y ago
  If non hackers created a successful web startup, then they must have some other kind of talent going for them, which is a plus since most others in the YC community have the hacker thing going for them.
alex_c 19y ago
>Past or Recent TechCrunch Coverage +2 Does Mashable count? :p

by vlad 19y ago

deleted 19y ago

[deleted]

imp 19y ago

I predict that tomorrow someone will take these scores and turn them into a webapp that rates applications. It looks like ycombinatorrater.com is available...

euccastro 19y ago

"Good college +2" seems counter to some of his latest writings. I guess "No Hackers on Team" would be a way greater penalty. I'm curious: why is the bonus for "founded a web startup" higher for a team of non-hackers?

dcurtis 19y ago
Yeah, but looking at the Y Combinator funding trends, the majority of their companies that succeed are by founders from "good colleges."
- jey 19y ago
  Correlation does not imply causation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_caus... Being a motivated high achiever probably correlates well with going to a good college, and with getting into YC.
  - dcurtis 19y ago
    Right, thus going to a good college = +2.
    - falsestprophet 19y ago
      Well whatever the case, your college didn't teach you statistics.
      - dcurtis 19y ago
        I completely understand the difference between correlation and causation. But in the grand scheme of things, the human brain is designed to recognize correlation when developing internal rating systems. You would have to be stupid to not automatically give more clout to a graduate of Harvard than to a drop out of some state university. The state university student may or may not be less qualified than the Harvard graduate, but in the vast majority of situations he will be. Even if YC doesn't give "real" points to graduates/students of good universities, just the mere emotional response to reading "harvard" or "yale" or "berkeley" sparks an automatically positive regard for the applicant. Isn't that enough cause? Thus, good college = +2.
        aantix 19y ago
        From the gospel, according to Paul... (September, 2007) "Between the volume of people we judge and the rapid, unequivocal test that's applied to our choices, Y Combinator has been an unprecedented opportunity for learning how to pick winners. One of the most surprising things we've learned is how little it matters where people went to college. I thought I'd already been cured of caring about that. There's nothing like going to grad school at Harvard to cure you of any illusions you might have about the average Harvard undergrad. And yet Y Combinator showed us we were still overestimating people who'd been to elite colleges. We'd interview people from MIT or Harvard or Stanford and sometimes find ourselves thinking: they must be smarter than they seem. It took us a few iterations to learn to trust our senses. Practically everyone thinks that someone who went to MIT or Harvard or Stanford must be smart. Even people who hate you for it believe it. But when you think about what it means to have gone to an elite college, how could this be true? We're talking about a decision made by admissions officers--basically, HR people--based on a cursory examination of a huge pile of depressingly similar applications submitted by seventeen year olds. And what do they have to go on? An easily gamed standardized test; a short essay telling you what the kid thinks you want to hear; an interview with a random alum; a high school record that's largely an index of obedience. Who would rely on such a test?" college = 0
yters 19y ago
If non hackers created a successful web startup, then they must have some other kind of talent going for them, which is a plus since most others in the YC community have the hacker thing going for them.

alex_c 19y ago

>Past or Recent TechCrunch Coverage +2 Does Mashable count? :p