4 ms·

It's hard (or impossible) to give detailed feedback to every applicant. But maybe telling them roughly in which bucket they fell ("shortlist", "pretty good", "o

by ipince 12y ago

It's hard (or impossible) to give detailed feedback to every applicant. But maybe telling them roughly in which bucket they fell ("shortlist", "pretty good", "okay", "stopped reading after 30s") would be useful.

_sentient 12y ago
YC is in a difficult position here. Aside from being terribly labor intensive, specifying the reasons for rejection may serve to discourage teams from reapplying in the future. Seeing how often founders get accepted on their nth attempt, it's really in YC's interest to let you down softly.
- ipince 12y ago
  I'm saying skip the reasons--that's too labor intensive. Just give a general idea of how the application was. Why? mostly calibration, I guess. I would find it useful to know how I'm doing within the pool. Even if the answer is "bottom 20%", that lets me know how much more effort I have to put into it to improve.
dctoedt 12y ago
> But maybe telling them roughly in which bucket they fell ("shortlist", "pretty good", "okay", "stopped reading after 30s") would be useful. Yes, it would be useful, but YC's lawyers probably advised against it. Doing this could open the door for a rejected applicant to allege some flavor of unlawful discrimination (pick one: race / ethnicity / gender / age / etc.). I'm not sure the anti-discrimination laws would even apply to a situation like YC, but at a minimum the allegation could turn into a bandwidth-sucking distraction and PR headache.
- afarrell 12y ago
  Everyone that reviews applications to MassChallenge rates them along a few dimensions and then gives them at least 30 words of feedback, so it is possible to do. Then again, we pitch, "you get feedback even if you don't get in" as part of the value of our program. (disclosure: I work for MC)
zodiac 12y ago
Besides the issue already raised, I think it might lead to teams optimizing for YC instead of for success. Of course, it would be ideal if the two optimization targets were the same, but I doubt that's true.
dzink 12y ago
Do simple checkboxes We had concerns about: a) idea b) team c) small market size d) something else

by ipince 12y ago

_sentient 12y ago

YC is in a difficult position here. Aside from being terribly labor intensive, specifying the reasons for rejection may serve to discourage teams from reapplying in the future. Seeing how often founders get accepted on their nth attempt, it's really in YC's interest to let you down softly.

ipince 12y ago
I'm saying skip the reasons--that's too labor intensive. Just give a general idea of how the application was. Why? mostly calibration, I guess. I would find it useful to know how I'm doing within the pool. Even if the answer is "bottom 20%", that lets me know how much more effort I have to put into it to improve.

dctoedt 12y ago

> But maybe telling them roughly in which bucket they fell ("shortlist", "pretty good", "okay", "stopped reading after 30s") would be useful. Yes, it would be useful, but YC's lawyers probably advised against it. Doing this could open the door for a rejected applicant to allege some flavor of unlawful discrimination (pick one: race / ethnicity / gender / age / etc.). I'm not sure the anti-discrimination laws would even apply to a situation like YC, but at a minimum the allegation could turn into a bandwidth-sucking distraction and PR headache.

afarrell 12y ago
Everyone that reviews applications to MassChallenge rates them along a few dimensions and then gives them at least 30 words of feedback, so it is possible to do. Then again, we pitch, "you get feedback even if you don't get in" as part of the value of our program. (disclosure: I work for MC)

zodiac 12y ago

Besides the issue already raised, I think it might lead to teams optimizing for YC instead of for success. Of course, it would be ideal if the two optimization targets were the same, but I doubt that's true.

dzink 12y ago

Do simple checkboxes We had concerns about: a) idea b) team c) small market size d) something else