> What matters is how it changed it.
I read his profile. 'Nuff said
I read his profile. 'Nuff said
My point was that how you receive someone saying YC changed their life is highly dependent on whether you think that the result should be celebrated or emulated. Everyone has experienced things that changed their lives and the lives of those around them, so to someone who doesn't see VC success as very desirable, it comes across as a fairly weak argument.
The fundamental mistake you are making is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Trust me, there are real things that are VC funded too. As a builder myself I would not become a VC and try to help other builders if I didn’t know that at was true at a core deep level and from first hand personal experience.
Who is "we" here? Certainly not me. I personally am embarrassed for the YC community when I see things like this and also attacks on others on the private Bookface forum. If you have a problem with someone, say it to their face. Maybe they'll learn something. Or spend a day in their shoes instead of being so quick to judge and perhaps say nothing at all. This statement sounds very fratty and secretive, which is my least favorite part about YC. I am very grateful that I got into YC, but 95% of people got nothing but a template rejection email. YC gets the first 100 picks in the draft. With great power comes great responsibility.
Speaking for me personally I agree with the sentiment about making things but the highest value I prize is making something good for other people and then giving it to the world to make it a better place. Not putting so much emphasis on what value you capture; instead focusing on what value you create. That's why aaronsw is my favorite YC founder of all time. I am impressed by folks who build these big companies, but far from the value I prize most.
You are right that I can’t speak for the broader YC community but the wrong attitudes that are an epidemic in the startup community are the things that don’t help anyone. When startup founders are scenesters or don’t focus on solving real problems, you get all the terrible behavior you see on the show Silicon Valley, but worse still you see the world harmed. Employees lose their jobs and years of their lives, and suffer the most. Capital is lit aflame.
Your later comment seems to agree with me that impact/value is more important so we do seem to agree at a deeper level. Nice to see you here Breck.
Edit: nice to see you here too! And the video was great. Very clear communicator. Sorry I harped on the "mocking" comment, and I'm guilty of it too sometimes, but I remember that for a lot of people who grew up far from the Valley, most of what they see is the "B.S." part of the pitches and they don't get to witness the more boring grind that is the majority of the truth. So sometimes they're just emulating the wrong parts and could benefit from guidance! That being said, you probably have interacted with 100x more startups than I have, so maybe my view of the dark patterns is a bit naive.
But arguing against this type of content on HN is a losing battle. Better to just vote for the stuff you do like and call out VCs on topics that actually showcase their problems. There are many people reading HN who are genuinely interested in this content, and the tone of the content is one of attempting helpfulness. So making a show of shooting it down just because it's inane YC stuff won't really win any hearts and minds. It's going to fizzle out on it's own because it's a narrowly scoped subject and VC interview advice is pretty easy to find online already.
VCs in general do have a terrible and unfair bias for Stanford. Frankly I went to Stanford. In 2008 when I did YC and started raising our seed round, VCs asked me why I even did YC because I had a Stanford degree.
I have seen so many people with no traditional background who succeed through the program.
That's interesting. I expect that perception has changed now, but am curious.
> The YC application is actually a great leveler because applications are evaluated by other founders through a community where building things for people is prized over pure credentialism.
I think it is a very good leveler, but there is a lot of causation going on when you go to a place like Stanford (or Duke, where I went). If you went to a top engineering school, you have a lot more exposure to people that can build things. If I didn't meet folks who encouraged me to seriously get into programming and engineering my senior year, I wouldn't have taken the first steps down the road that led me to YC.
I think SUS is a great leveler, because it's giving folks anywhere and everywhere access to positive peer mentors who can do for them what my classmates did for me. Am very excited to see where that goes.
And I'm not using that as a stand-in for elite schools in general. The requirement that founders physically locate themselves the bay is as big a factor as anything.
Just because non-traditional people get in sometimes does not mean that there is not still selection bias towards a particular group.
If you are so sure about your claims, then you should call for YC to release the data to prove it. Specifically addressing the questions below.
1. What percentage of all founding teams had at least one member who attended Stanford? (Degree not even necessary - just attended at some point)
2. What percentage of all applicants who had a team member with a Stanford connection and got interviews?
3. What percentage of all applicants who had a team member with a Stanford connection got accepted?
Edit: Also, in case it wasn't clear - run the same data for any other schools with a high volume of applicants. Questions 2 and 3 should be roughly equal if there is no bias.
And I'd prefer to see the data over time as well. Doesn't have to be each applicantion period, but at in least groups per year to see if trends changed.
It helped me onto a path of healing and growth from chronic emotional and physical pain, and inspired me to focus on being a more rounded, grounded, decent person, rather than on simplistic notions of “success”.
It’s hard to imagine how I could have turned my life around so much, without YC.
None of these personal development practices were provided/recommended by YC, but YC gave me the confidence and self-belief to find this path and pursue it all the way, when no person or organisation had done so before, and none I know of today would give that kind of opportunity to the person I was at that time.
Of course, many organisations can help people make profound changes in their lives, and YC is not going to be the best one for everyone or even many people.
But it was the the first organisation that helped me make the changes I needed, and those changes had nothing to do with becoming (or trying to become) a tech millionaire/billionaire.
Of course, YC wants their founders to build successful companies if possible, but as I've found first-hand, they first-and-foremost care about about the founders' personal wellbeing and personal qualities.
Before YC my business advice came from The Apprentice, and I didn't really know how to create value. But somehow I lucked into YC. I'll never forget being in awe of how hard my cohorts worked (and how exhausted they could be at the end of the day), and how good their skills were. How they could make things that were good, not in just well designed and built, but good for the world. I was way out of my depth, but committed to try and be able to do what they could do. I'm still maybe a B or B+ on my "can build something people want" skillset, but far better than the "D/D-" I was a decade ago.
I used to have one gripe about YC because of the insider/outsider thing—it's great to be on the inside but as a rule I prefer more open things—but then they came out with the most recent iterations of SUS which are open to all and have just been truly remarkable. I think it just goes to show what a special organization this is.
> > What matters is how it changed it.
"I read his profile. 'Nuff said"
Seriously though?? Certainly the post referred to their awesome experience(s) as a YC founder, and later a YC partner and currently as a VC. Sure there is an argument to be made against taking VC money; as it makes you (the founder(s) chase growth, possibly at the exclusion of all else--but I inferred from their post that it was a great experience for them for many reasons.
Fine you wouldn't take VC money, that's cool; but businesses that decide its the best path forward are not necessarily scum nor sellouts.