As someone that cares about founders, rather see 7000 startups get $20k than 240 get $500k; obviously not my choice to make though.
As someone that cares about founders, rather see 7000 startups get $20k than 240 get $500k; obviously not my choice to make though.
Also, there is a problem with brand dilution. The #5000 startup in whatever order they are using is probably much worse than the #50, and they want to be known for having only startups that don't suck.
[1] Ar least for now.
Also, one of YC’s competitors is doing just fine scaling and literally charges founders to join a cohort.
They agree that startups need the same set of advices, and the benefit of the advisors is that they probably had seen the problem before.
But they don't need the same advice at the same time, so the advisor must understand the current problem of the startup and the general situation of the startup and give personalized advice. It's not possible to give all of them the same advice at the same time like in a class.
As it relates to mentoring, in my opinion, really just three core parts:
- Accountability - Problem Solving - Networking/Intros
All of these are addressable using software & system, classroom training for mentors, and auditable using voice to text systems similar to how Gong.io does it for sales teams.
YC is a software company, they know it too. If they don’t change they won’t last next 10 years.
If applications are not good enough, then problem is they’re not communicating what they need and a path to anyone proving they’re making progress. Per YC, this proof of progress is the best predictor of founder success.
Beyond that, they also claim their alumni network is their greatest asset. Obviously growing it requires quality control, but there’s no reason no to add “levels” to maintain quality within the network.
Simply put, there story neither adds up, nor fits their claims. To be it appears they have switch to competing on cash offers, which if true, is a bad signal.