Many VCs have followed a standard pathway from Harvard/Stanford/Whartonn MBA into a fund (because it checks the boxes of LP due diligence) , but if you are looking to shortcut that process, then you have to consider how other VCs got their start.
The great debate in VC is whether Operator VCs (those who have founded or operated a business) are better suited to VC than Investor VCs (those who haven't founded or operated a business, like most Wall Street types)?
The data indicates there is no clearcut answer. You can read the CB Insights analysis here: https://www.cbinsights.com/research/founders-best-venture-ca...
Also, Fred Wilson (@AVC) wrote an article that indicated investor VCs make the best kind of VC more often (which of course can be analyzed otherwise): https://avc.com/2017/05/investor-vcs-and-operator-vcs/
The important things to note are that 1) VC is not monolithic and 2) VC is multi disciplinary.
The best VC fund managers need to be great at raising capital, have excellent deal flow/selection, know how to communicate, negotiate and close deals, be valuable board members, manage a fund portfolio and exit portfolio companies to return capital to the fund's LPs.
Finally, here are the top three reasons why Fred Wilson thinks many of the best VCs, at least of his generation, were not entrepreneurs and operators before becoming VCs: 1. Manage People. Avoiding the temptation to operate and instead managing well from a distance. 2. Strategic Mindset. Understanding where value is going to be in an emerging market, how to get to the best strategically positioned companies first, and how to guide those companies toward a strategy that wins the market. 3. Being a portfolio team player by wearing many hats and ultimately doing whatever it takes to help solve the startup founder's biggest problems.
Also see,
“Investor vs. Operator VC” by Rory Stirling https://link.medium.com/nIPkvG31z1