Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Applying to YC

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 116 posts

Re: Applying to YC

#51

Post by yousifa »

btrautsc wrote: post #7

- didn't get in first time (check, different company though). - weren't sure if good fit for b2b/ saas company (wrong). - questioned how much value YC could provide us (many times more than expected). for us going through YC, working with the partners, and joining the YC network were the best things we could have possibly done. Thinking back to life pre-YC (Dec-13) to now the rate of change (progress/ growth/ knowled…

hey Brian, just messaged you in linkedin, want to ask some questions if you have some time

-Yousif

Re: Applying to YC

#52

Post by larrys »

Qworg wrote: post #44
amirmc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What gives you this impression? From what I can tell (from the outside) YC is a pretty diverse crowd and I believe PG once said that academic background doesn't much matter. Grit (aka resilience, determination, relentlessness, etc) is more important. In fact, there's nothing in the application form that even asks about education (there used to be but maybe it moved to the additional founder info - i.e it doesn't seem…

I think this impression is pervasive (at least amongst my friends). It would be great to highlight founders who have gotten into YC who don't "fit the mold" so to speak. Most, if not all, of the "check out my winning YC application" posts have multiple Ivy League/Stanford founders, advantageous childhoods, etc. Add to that the same posts have "multiple people who are YC alums read, edited, and/or vetted our applicati…

"It would be great to highlight founders who have gotten into YC who don't "fit the mold" so to speak. "

My personal feeling (per my other comment below) is that weeding out people that are easily scared off (or need super special encouragement) might be a good thing and not a bad thing.

Not having a halo doesn't mean "don't bother to even try" or "non starter". It just means work harder and figure out an angle that makes you unique and sell yourself. It can actually be an advantage rather than someone who thinks they can just phone it in.

For the record this was the attitude that got me into an Ivy League business school with no family connections, no family money and what had to be the lowest SAT scores in the class as well as my high school telling me not to even bother applying that "I wasn't the right material for that school".

Re: Applying to YC

#53

Post by pbreit »

rmena123 wrote: post #25

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't YC for the Ivy League class type? The "I dropped out cause I am smart" type? The "I wrote a book on _____" type? "I worked at Google or Facebook" type? What about the regular type that doesn't have much to show, but wants to do great things? Basically, I feel like the YC application is a pissing match of who can piss the farthest shown on paper not outside. haha :) I have realized…

No, you definitely do not fit. But you have no idea why.

Re: Applying to YC

#54

Post by pbreit »

rmena123 wrote: post #20

What about the single founder? I know the answer, but I guess I shouldn't apply til I find a co-founder?

Single founder can work but it's usually not ideal. For one thing, it demonstrates that you can't find or persuade even a single other person interested enough in you and your idea to join up.

Re: Applying to YC

#55

Post by nostrademons »

Qworg wrote: post #44
amirmc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What gives you this impression? From what I can tell (from the outside) YC is a pretty diverse crowd and I believe PG once said that academic background doesn't much matter. Grit (aka resilience, determination, relentlessness, etc) is more important. In fact, there's nothing in the application form that even asks about education (there used to be but maybe it moved to the additional founder info - i.e it doesn't seem…

I think this impression is pervasive (at least amongst my friends). It would be great to highlight founders who have gotten into YC who don't "fit the mold" so to speak. Most, if not all, of the "check out my winning YC application" posts have multiple Ivy League/Stanford founders, advantageous childhoods, etc. Add to that the same posts have "multiple people who are YC alums read, edited, and/or vetted our applicati…

I think one of the critical skills for a startup founder is to ignore the general impression and find out yourself what the actual reality is.

Another critical skill is the ability, when somebody else is confused by their general preconceptions, to point out why your special case is different and why they should abandon their general theories for the specific opportunity in front of them.

YC might very well do the highlighting you mention - it's to their advantage to draw as diverse an applicant pool as possible. However, in some ways this misses the point. It doesn't disqualify you if you didn't get into Stanford, Google, the Ivy League, etc. It does disqualify you if you think this is important enough to disqualify you.

Re: Applying to YC

#57

Post by skizm »

I think people say they are "too early" because they feel that don't have the resume to get accepted. They feel like if they could only get user traction before applying you might over look our mediocre grades, work history, and personal projects. We've evaluated our own YC resumes and found they come up short. I don't think there are too many people out there who have a killer project and/or super smart founders that are hesitant to apply because they genuinely think their company is in too early of a stage.

Re: Applying to YC

#58

Post by zt »

ryanSrich wrote: post #23
TheMakeA wrote: post #19

Good post but I wish there was more transparency in what YC was looking for (though I understand this is difficult, otherwise people would game it). There are companies that are accepted with just an idea and companies with six figure revenues that are rejected. There are founders with bad ideas that are "funded for the pivot," and founders like Drew Houston who are rejected because their initial idea was bad. It jus…

I think a lot of it has to do with who you are and then what you have coming in (in terms of a product). So for example. If you're a Stanford grad, have already started and exited a company and now are a part-time VC, you can probably get into YC with just an idea. (similar to Standard Treasury). Alternatively if you've not made a name for yourself yet it's likely YC would look for something already built, with users…

(1) Neither Dan or I went to Stanford.

(2) Dan and I are part-time angels really, with very small checks given to a very small number of companies. Also, as sama mentioned, we basically stopped investing at all once we got into YC. We still make an investment from time-to-time but mostly in people we know already. We don't have meetings, way too busy on Standard Treasury.

(3) We felt like an underdog when we applied to YC. I think we were underdogs when we applied! We didn't know them and certainly didn't have much of a reputation outside of financial technology (still don't?). We felt very fortunate when we got in. YC was amazing for us and has always been supportive of our mild madness.

Re: Applying to YC

#59

Post by ryanSrich »

zt wrote: post #58
ryanSrich wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of it has to do with who you are and then what you have coming in (in terms of a product). So for example. If you're a Stanford grad, have already started and exited a company and now are a part-time VC, you can probably get into YC with just an idea. (similar to Standard Treasury). Alternatively if you've not made a name for yourself yet it's likely YC would look for something already built, with users…

(1) Neither Dan or I went to Stanford. (2) Dan and I are part-time angels really, with very small checks given to a very small number of companies. Also, as sama mentioned, we basically stopped investing at all once we got into YC. We still make an investment from time-to-time but mostly in people we know already. We don't have meetings, way too busy on Standard Treasury. (3) We felt like an underdog when we applied…

For sure.

And my comment wasn't meant to come off as "these are exactly the things Standard Treasury did to get in". It was more of a comparison of the type of founders YC would look for in a product that is still in the initial idea phase. So thanks for clearing that up.

The angel thing is actually interesting to me. You don't think that had any weight on YC's decision to admit you guys? To me it would seem like someone who could clearly support themselves financially enough to be an angel would be an ideal candidate as a founder...but I'm not an investor so I have no idea if these things are good or bad.

Re: Applying to YC

#60

Post by wellboy »

I think the post tries to encourage more people to start startups and to apply to YC, however, I think the way this post is formulated, it gives the impression that if you have a good idea you can simply apply, which I don't think is true at all. I think it would be really helpful to write that people should only apply to YC if they either have a track record or traction. Criterion 1 is Track record consists of these three things

1. Built/sold something impressive before

2. Worked at Facebook or Google

3. Graduated from Stanford

Criterion 2 is traction, which is either 10.000 users for consumer or $5.000 revenue for B2B after 6 months.

In summary, if the founder does not have a track record as described above or strong traction, she/he is very unlikely to get into YC. Explaining this will prevent people without a track record from thinking that they only have to have a good idea, because if you don't have a track record you need a really good idea with a huge market and traction to get in. I don't think many founders realise that.

I might be wrong, so I would love for others to critizise or add to my comment. I would love to hear about examples for instance, of a recent startup where the founders neither had a track record, nor traction.

Post reply on HN