

Ask PG: Application Rating System? - bharath

&#60;p&#62;From your latest essay:&#60;p&#62;"Sometimes it literally is software, like Hacker News and our application rating system."&#60;p&#62;This is the 1st time I've heard about you guys using some kind of automated application rating system. Would you be willing to discuss how it works?
======
vlad
To get to the interview stage:

Good college +2

Done with schooling +3

Single Founder -5

No Hackers on Team -4

Mention Lisp +2

Mention Smalltalk +2

Mention Python +1

Zero Hackers Willing to Relocate -5

Past or Recent TechCrunch Coverage +2

Past or Recent Mainstream Coverage +2

Google search finds many top blogs or major news sources linking to current or
past project +3

Team of hackers previously founded a web startup +1

Team of non-hackers previously founded a web startup +2

Not drinking age -3

Average age 23 to 26 +4

Average age 30 to 35 -1

Average age 36 to 45 -2

Average age older than 45 -10

Knows idea should be a web app +3

Short and sweet application +3

Estimated scores for some companies at the time of application: Xobni 12 (MIT
hackers), Auctomatic 13 (No hackers at time of application), Justin.tv 25
(Lots of pluses, no negations)

I'd say at 10 you have a good chance at an interview, at 13-15 an excellent
chance. This is derived from Paul's writings, speeches, videos, and comments.

The actual idea doesn't matter because Paul will either tell you he likes it
or recommend changing it during the interview. If you're not done with
college, now is the time to say you will focus on the project instead.

Again, this is just a rough guide and I have zero qualifications to even write
this. After the interview, only your execution matters.

~~~
euccastro
"Good college +2" seems counter to some of his latest writings. I guess "No
Hackers on Team" would be a way greater penalty. I'm curious: why is the bonus
for "founded a web startup" higher for a team of non-hackers?

~~~
dcurtis
Yeah, but looking at the Y Combinator funding trends, the majority of their
companies that succeed are by founders from "good colleges."

~~~
jey
Correlation does not imply causation.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_caus...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation)

Being a motivated high achiever probably correlates well with going to a good
college, and with getting into YC.

~~~
dcurtis
Right, thus going to a good college = +2.

~~~
falsestprophet
Well whatever the case, your college didn't teach you statistics.

~~~
dcurtis
I completely understand the difference between correlation and causation. But
in the grand scheme of things, the human brain is designed to recognize
correlation when developing internal rating systems. You would have to be
stupid to not automatically give more clout to a graduate of Harvard than to a
drop out of some state university. The state university student may or may not
be less qualified than the Harvard graduate, but in the vast majority of
situations he will be.

Even if YC doesn't give "real" points to graduates/students of good
universities, just the mere emotional response to reading "harvard" or "yale"
or "berkeley" sparks an automatically positive regard for the applicant. Isn't
that enough cause?

Thus, good college = +2.

~~~
aantix
From the gospel, according to Paul... (September, 2007)

"Between the volume of people we judge and the rapid, unequivocal test that's
applied to our choices, Y Combinator has been an unprecedented opportunity for
learning how to pick winners. One of the most surprising things we've learned
is how little it matters where people went to college.

I thought I'd already been cured of caring about that. There's nothing like
going to grad school at Harvard to cure you of any illusions you might have
about the average Harvard undergrad. And yet Y Combinator showed us we were
still overestimating people who'd been to elite colleges. We'd interview
people from MIT or Harvard or Stanford and sometimes find ourselves thinking:
they must be smarter than they seem. It took us a few iterations to learn to
trust our senses.

Practically everyone thinks that someone who went to MIT or Harvard or
Stanford must be smart. Even people who hate you for it believe it.

But when you think about what it means to have gone to an elite college, how
could this be true? We're talking about a decision made by admissions officers
--basically, HR people--based on a cursory examination of a huge pile of
depressingly similar applications submitted by seventeen year olds. And what
do they have to go on? An easily gamed standardized test; a short essay
telling you what the kid thinks you want to hear; an interview with a random
alum; a high school record that's largely an index of obedience. Who would
rely on such a test?"

college = 0

~~~
vlad
You don't lose points for college in my system. Remember, Paul says he accepts
everybody who is good enough, not the top 20 teams. Whichever way you reach
13-15 on my scale, you're likely to get an interview. We'll have to see.

"And yet Y Combinator showed us we were still overestimating people who'd been
to elite colleges."

Paul "still overestimates" such students, so they're more likely to get an
interview. And since he used the word "still", it means he feels he's still
biased at this present time. How do you think these test cases came about,
anyway?

"college = 0"

I doubt that this can ever be true. Paul still asks for the students'
colleges. In other words, he's still figuring this out. What he means is,
nobody needs to have a degree or a good college to create a successful
startup. That is true. But I do think there are good signs about a person that
uniquely pre-qualify them if the student is from a good college:

1) The fact that the school accepted them, matters least (like Paul says in
the quote above.)

2) However, I do think Paul considers it a sign of dedication if a student
from MIT wants to leave or delay entry in favor of YC, or if they've recently
graduated from Harvard or Stanford and instead of proceeding to graduate
school or possibly a six-figure job, to spend a couple of years living on
ramen noodles.

3) Regardless of what Paul thinks, VC's probably love that stuff, if the
startup doesn't have lots of traction yet.

The big VC investments seems to go to those from elite schools: MIT (no
product when selected by YC, 4m VC before product was finalized), Cambridge
(no product when selected by YC, 400k VC), Yale (no product when selected by
YC, unknown VC money), Stanford (likely no product when selected by YC,
Sequoia Capital VC).

4) I suggested good colleges would get +2, not just elite colleges.

------
sharpshoot
The best applicants get more points ;)

In order to maximise this you need to

a) have a good idea b) have a good team c) be able to execute

I believe this should be sufficient to 'game' the system ;)

------
pg
It isn't the rating part that's automated. It's just a convenient tool for us
to read and score applications quickly.

------
jey
What makes you think that the rating software is "automated"? I bet it's just
a tool used by the YC partners. It could be as simple as a human-assisted
radix sort, so the 1000 applications first get binned into 10 bins, then each
of the apps in each bin are further subdivided on a 1 to 10 scale, etc.

------
kashif
I think the application would pull out all news.yc submissions and comments
for the applicants and probably even show the top 10 google search results for
each founder's name. Additionally, I think all the 4 partners go through all
applications and they all probably rate it. The rating system probably binds
the end result for easy consumption.

