Common Misconceptions About Applying to YC
themacro.com
themacro.com
Frankly I expect better than this from YC. You guys have the data, and don't need to be actively deceptive.
Anyway, thanks for the feedback and it's cool to know there's interest around YC data.
If the goal is to dispel myths about what's required to get into YC, then this is not the data to accomplish that. However, if the goal is to show that exceptional applicants that do not fit the myths can be accepted, then sure, this data shows that.
Look, it benefits YC if you apply. They are trying to reduce the probability that you don't apply. It takes a lot of time and effort from you to put together a high quality pitch and very little for them to evaluate it. They lose nothing turning you down. They lose a lot if you are successful but didn't bother to apply.
The numbers are kind of a crock of shit for reasons others have articulated in this thread. YC is a business, this is a press release. Don't be shocked that it's transparent biz-dev bullshit. (But do be offended, and do let it reduce the probability that you do business with YC, because if they can't treat you like an intelligent customer, they're probably peddling snake oil.)
Edit: I'm not trying to discourage startups from seeking funding. I just hate pre-21st-century marketing hype. Developers live in a post-Cluetrain-manifesto universe, we expect intelligence, authenticity, and depth. Our currency is trust, you build trust by being correct, thorough, and sincere. The blog post was correct but shallow and insincere. That loses trust; lost trust means lost business.
Yes, their interest is in more people applying, but I don't see them being misleading. For me, they are actually really assuming intelligence from their readers. They don't say "We love foreign companies! Apply if you are foreigner!" They say "29% [of W16] were from outside the US". Which I read as "we are pretty US-centric but you still have a chance".
They don't say "Apply even if you are solo!" They say that some solo project were funded but that they are a small minority and that they do not recommend this path.
Of course this is self-interested, but I fail to see where it is dishonest.
> They provide numbers, they assume the reader is intelligent and hope they will learn new things and unlearn wrong assumptions.
This exactly is the issue people here are intelligent and that is why they can see the glaring gaps in the way the data is presented.
I think people are little pissed because the article chose to go the data route and dint provide the complete information for people to infer from.
They provided a number, explaining what this number was. Assuming the reader is actually educated in statistics 101, that is not misleading at all.
Yes, they could publish all their data, but you also said you want concision. You can't have it both ways!
> S16: False. 14.2% of accepted companies weren’t even incorporated when they applied.
This didn't actually address the misconception - it sidestepped it. I would love to see data on what percent of YC companies raised a seed round prior to being accepted (or had a cofounder who had raised a round for a prior company), and how that's changed over time.
1. the respective percentages of companies that applied with and without prior seed funding, and
2. the respective percentages that were accepted from applicants with seed funding and applicants without seed funding.
As has been noted elsewhere in this thread, I think applicant vs. incumbent numbers would be a more honest reflection of the data if you want to dispel these myths.
I'll be honest, I have my own misconceptions about YC and it's put me at an impasse of wanting to apply.
1.) From what you read, it seems like everyone has a positive experience. At least in my network, that doesn't seem to be true. I'm not applying the logic that it sucked for X, therefore it must suck for everyone. I just want to know who YC works best for and who it doesn't. After all, the old adage goes, if you're selling to everyone, you're selling to no one.
2.) Following up on that point, I thought very few enterprise startups did YC and that YC would be weak in that category. From the stats, it seems like a majority of startups were enterprise focused! But, the standard YC terms kinda suck for enterprise startups. If your ACV is +$100k, why raise $120k for 7%?
3.) When is the right time to apply? Taking some thinking from pg, you should make 100% focus your customers and product. If I needed to raise $ now and wasn't accepted into YC, I would just go try raise money at that moment. Seems odd to hold out and keep trying.
Once again, I think most of my points are misunderstandings about how YC works. I don't think this should help reflect anyone else's decision to apply. I think it's very likely that I will apply to YC. I just wanted to get some of my thoughts out.
I believe the "enterprise" number in the article includes B2B startups, not just enterprise.
That being said, it's a pretty common misconception that YC is about the money. It generally isn't! Money might be the smallest part you get for that 7%, and certainly is the most short lived, which is why in many cases even companies that are already generating revenue find it valuable to apply. This page covers a lot of the benefits (beyond money): https://www.ycombinator.com/why
Did they get the standard valuation deal (7% equity per 120 K$)?
Only 30% of founders are from outside the US, only 14% aren't incorporated, 50% had no revenue, only 8.5% are solo founders, 54.7% were recommended by YC alumni...
So basically the odds of being accepted if you fit into ALL those buckets are probably very very slim. I don't see how fitting into all those buckets make your company unworthy of investment.
It's good to know this though then you can mess with your startup to make it fit into high-probability buckets. I don't think it would improve the startup, but it would certainly improve your chances of getting into an accelerator.
-US based
-Incorporated
-Recommended
-with Revenue
- 2 Founders
has only a .71x.85.8x50x46.3x61.3 ~ 8% chance of getting in.
"Misconception: YC doesn’t accept companies without revenue. S16: 50% were not making money when they applied."
Which means 50% were already making money when accepted. Given that I'm guessing way less than 50% of applications are making money, this would seen to be a big advantage.
Of course, I could be wrong on that too. :)
> S16: 45% were rejected at least once before. Of those previously rejected, the average number of rejections before being accepted was 2.
What's the most rejections for someone that was accepted and most rejections for someone that was not?
Is this true? I know companies have been accepted which didn't apply before the deadline, and IIRC one of the early YC companies got in basically because they bumped into one of the principals and were told "you should be part of YC".
I wouldn't be surprised if there have been a few companies which due to unusual circumstances got into YC without submitting a formal application.
> Is this true?
Depending on how you want to think about it, you can trivially falsify this by looking at ImagineK12.
This begs the question: How much weight does a recommendation carry?
Or put in another way: Should you network with YC alumni in case you ever want to apply?
And it certainly can't hurt to network with YC alumni, for reasons beyond just getting a rec.
> If 95% of applications are from pre-revenue companies, then the 50/50 split between acceptees which are with/without revenue would indicate that companies with revenue are 19x more likely to be accepted
Replace revenue with referral.
Absolutely, yes. It doesn't mean that you will certainly get in, but having a professional relationship with one or more influential YC alumni will be very helpful.
Like almost anywhere else in life, networking is an essential business skill to have and use.
> Misconception: I did another accelerator so I can’t do YC.
Sam posted back in January that it was actually much harder to get into YC if you'd done program: https://blog.ycombinator.com/getting-into-y-combinator
Did this change?
I know you have at least a couple areas where you have had overlap but I believe they were all at least separated by a year or two.