
So you didn't get into Y Combinator, now what? - denismars
http://imars.posthaven.com/so-you-didnt-get-into-yc-now-what
======
birken
For the people that believe that getting into YC is a necessary part of
startup success: This site is not giving you an impartial view of the startup
world. Obviously we are on the site for Y combinator right now and note that I
have nothing against this site and enjoy it very much.

But stories relating to YC companies get a lot more upvotes than stories
relating to other companies based on both systemic and natural patterns. This
leads to a casual observer believing that YC companies are doing incredibly
well and all other companies are not, because you aren't hearing about their
success as much. This could not be further from the truth.

The majority of successful startups didn't go to YC just based on sheer
volume. I have no doubt YC is a very valuable thing, but I've both seen and
participated in groups where a bunch of people who had no idea what they were
doing figured it out without YC's help. What current and potential customers
think of your company is a heck of a lot more important than what a bunch of
YC advisors think of your company.

~~~
denismars
Companies will be successful with or without YC if they are determined to
succeed. YC alone won't make any company successful, only the founders and
their employees can do that.

I share this same view with founders of current YC startups
[http://imars.posthaven.com/so-you-got-into-yc-now-
what](http://imars.posthaven.com/so-you-got-into-yc-now-what)

------
Jemaclus
Are there any meta-analyses of YC "I didn't get into YC" / "I got into YC"
posts that can give a more objective conclusion to this kind of thing? We
almost always see these posts from individual founders who did [not] make it
into YC and what _they_ think the reasons are. It's all anecdotal.

I realize the plural of anecdote is not data, but it would be nice to see some
real scholarly analysis of what happens to YC applicants, as opposed to a
series of anecdotal and speculative blog posts. Denis is both a founder and a
YC advisor, so maybe his anecdotes are a little higher quality than others,
but even so, they're still anecdotes.

Which brings me to my other point: every couple of months we get flooded with
"I didn't get into YC" and they all basically say the same thing (or at least
variations on the same thing). It seems to me that anyone who is applying to
YC would already read up as much as they can about YC applicants, which
includes reading every "I didn't get into YC" post they can find. After
reading 5 or 10 of them, they'll quickly realize there are the same 5 lessons
from each one. Why read any more? (Which translates to: why post another "I
didn't get into YC" post?)

Anyway, just kinda thinking out loud here. I would love to see a more
comprehensive, multi-applicant analysis instead of yet-another-anecdotal-blog-
post.

[Edit: Next up on a Jemaclus post, how many times can I use the word
"anecdote" in one comment? Stay tuned...]

~~~
denismars
Agreed, although, the aim here is not to focus on the 'why' part? It's to
focus on the 'where to go from here' part. The 'why' will always be anecdotal
as it's one perspective vs another. The key to this post is really honing in
on the fact that the best entrepreneurs can take setbacks yet still move on to
succeed in their endeavors to build amazing companies with our without YC.
Which 'anecdotally or otherwise' makes for the best YC applicants.

------
pangram
My cofounder and I were rejected by YC last year. YC provided great feedback,
and we took it into consideration, but decided we still thought the idea was
solid. We kept looking for funding and eventually found an accelerator that
specialized in education startups (co.lab), and it turned out to be better for
us in every way -- better terms, better ongoing support, so on and so forth.
So, it's actually good that we were rejected.

I would definitely apply to YC again, though. Even if you're rejected it's
still 10 minutes of concentrated feedback from smart, experienced people,
which is always worth something.

------
afarrell
I work on the software team at MassChallenge, a nonprofit and startup
accelerator in Boston. We work hard to make the process of applying as
valuable for startups who don't make it into the 128 that actually come into
our space for the summer. Multiple companies have gotten rejected, used the
feedback our judges give them, and gotten in the 2nd time around, won money in
the end.

The criteria we look for are slightly different since we don't take any of the
company's equity and thus look at broader impact than just profitability but
everything said here is true for us as well.

------
alaskamiller
I applied for Y Combinator 5 times since 2008.

Now I serve coffee.

Just kidding, I'm pretty successful.

------
free2rhyme214
Drew was rejected on his first application?

Anyways this is obvious because if you don't you fail and go back to employee
land more than likely.

------
geoffsanders
Entrepreneurs make companies, not accelerators.

~~~
denismars
Yup - see [http://imars.posthaven.com/so-you-got-into-yc-now-
what](http://imars.posthaven.com/so-you-got-into-yc-now-what)

------
juddlyon
"Determination is by far the strongest attribute of successful entrepreneurs,
so stay focused, and keep going."

That's it.

------
jseip
It's an incredibly useful data point to YC if the applicants get rejected and
then quit building. If that happens, the entrepreneurs are basically
confirming YC's decision not to invest. Ain't no way to succeed without
persistence.

------
up_and_up
> So you didn't get into Y Combinator, now what?

Hmmm...maybe build your company anyway and keep more equity for yourself.

ycombinator != only route to startup success, obviously.

