I decided not to apply YC again | Hacker News Reader

I decided not to apply YC again

29 pointstentative17 comments

After considerable reflection and multiple applications to Y Combinator (YC), both with and without securing interviews, I've come to a decisive conclusion: YC is no longer a cornerstone for my startup journey. The YC of today seems to have strayed from its foundational principles, favoring applicants who are young, privileged, well-connected, or possess an impressive pedigree.

The notion that "if you are nobody, you will remain nobody" appears increasingly prevalent, suggesting that only those already deemed outliers stand a chance to be recognized as such in the future. This shift is disheartening and feels at odds with the spirit of entrepreneurship.

Even though YC's media resources remain beneficial, there's a palpable sense of fatigue among its partners, hinting at a deeper malaise. The playbook that once spelled success for YC now seems less effective, signaling a potential desperation to reclaim its former glory. This departure from what made YC distinct and successful is particularly striking.

The application process, which once held the promise of uncovering groundbreaking founders, now feels more akin to a superficial exercise. It seems to serve as both a joke and a trap for many aspiring entrepreneurs who bring their hopes and innovative ideas to the table.

Furthermore, the selection process at YC has become a point of contention. It no longer seems to be a reliable indicator of potential or innovation. The recent batches lack the element of surprise, often filled with ordinary ideas pitched by individuals who may look exceptional on paper but might lack the essential qualities of grit, conviction, passion, and drive that define true entrepreneurs.

Reflecting on Paul Graham's early essays and the ideals YC once stood for, it's clear that the current trajectory and choices of YC mark the end of an era. What was once a beacon for genuine innovation now resembles a vast, impersonal machine, adopting a spray-and-pray approach coupled with a media engine designed to captivate young, hopeful minds. This realization has led me to the decision that YC will no longer be a part of my path forward.

I've started to call YC a "business factory;" commodification of creative human endeavors never goes well. By eliminating the human ability to adapt and grow from consideration, we remove most of the value.

[Edit]

As badly as some people want to believe you can replace one person with any other, it is just not true.

You cannot replace every person with another person , there are few truly unique people like great philosophers or scientists or some artists but they are few in a generation and businesses don’t employ those geniuses in the first place.

You cannot replace someone with anyone yes, but there are people who can do most jobs . It is usually a process or documentation problem when someone is deemed irreplaceable in an organization, rarely the role is so unique only one person can do it .

YC is a business factory ? That is the always been the mandate ? to create businesses of a specific type , I am confused why would you think that something recent.

I wouldn’t call founding a startup creative, it is lot of things but creative is probably not in the top 10 for me . I don’t think it has every been for YC either, most of their success stories are not what I would call creative solutions to either business building or product development

You focus on individuals, completely ignoring the team dynamic, the systemic nature of things.

Do you think teams, sports, military, corporate, or otherwise, who develop teamwork and comraderie would mind if you switch their captain? Replace their teammate with whom they have developed trust with a complete stranger? You can certainly replace people, or even a leader, but the cost is vast, and the transition frought with existential danger to the system. People grow and develop working relationships. It takes time and energy to cultivate. Google found psychological safety as the number one predictor of team success. Destroy the team, destroy most of the value.

The YC site talks about helping founders, not mass manufacturing businesses for their own gain.

What is your top 10 list of founder traits?

I feel you, however I would say at the very least I find the YC submission process a very useful exercise and encourage all people thinking of doing a startup to complete it, even if you don't submit it. When I submitted to YC and got an interview with them, they were extremely courteous to me, way more so than the VCs and investors I'd dealt with, and while they ultimately didn't accept me they sent me a lot of feedback with how I could improve for next time. That is much appreciated and I won't forget it.

As a counter point it would be nice to see some data around predictors such as degrees, connections etc.

I always thought of YC as just venture capital. They always invest money in lots of promising small companies in the hope that some of them make it big.

So what has changed here? The OP talks about "spray and pray" - but isn't that the fundamental business model of VC? They also mention that they have strayed from early ideals... What ideals were those?

I think this "spray and pray" approach is making entrepreneurship more accessible. You get access to some funds, education and assistance to develop your business, and access to a pool of sought-after contacts you otherwise wouldn't have.

It gives people an opportunity to pursue their startup ideas - something that simply isn't possible for those less privileged.

I don't see how that cant be considered a good thing - especially for those who cant afford to bootstrap themselves and have no experience fundraising.

It's not actually spray and pray though; you can bet money the people being selected are "...individuals who may look exceptional on paper but might lack the essential qualities... that define true entrepreneurs."

Yeah, I was more using the parents wording. They most definitely don’t just randomly choose participants, and as you say, will be looking for people who need that boost, and are capable of using it

Or, like in most of corporate America, they default to picking Harvard alums, or similar, because they look good on paper. Statistics would be great, but I don't have them.

No doubt it is weighted towards North American institutes as thats where YC is located, but a quick glance over the company profiles shows there are many that aren't. It would definitely be interesting to know more about the demographics though.

What are the downsides of applying?

I haven't dug into the process yet, but it seems like a worthy exercise in clarifying your own thoughts and gaining feedback, even if nothing comes out of it.

Opportunity cost with respect to effort also prioritization .

It does clarify your thoughts, however it may put a lot of items on the plate you are not yet ready for .

If you wish to focus first on building the product , solving the problem or pain point YC is not the place . building a business is a different problem YC helps you focus more on the second than the first (with good reason )

I don't know how much information you have to reveal, but you could be giving away a revolutionary idea for "free." I've heard this was/is a popular Google and Amazon strategy: say you are considering a buyout, get a look a critical, proprietary biz data, say "no thanks," and go build your own.

Seems like Silicon Valley is less TV show and more documentary as time goes on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlwwVuSUUfc

Mike Judge has got to be one of the most observant people around; he just nails it over and over again. Hilarious.

Let's not forget Idiocracy which also has been called a documentary in recent years.

When you've applied in the past, did you get any useful feedback, after your application was rejected? it's a genuine question, i'm curious if they provide anything actionable or a generic "we found other applicants more in line with our values"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com