
Entrepreneur First Thinks It Can Grab The Talent Long Before YC - jordn
http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/entrepreneur-first-thinks-it-can-grab-the-talent-long-before-yc/
======
UK-AL
Start ups used to be for scrappy guys, the people who dropped out or had a
winding career path.

Now its become a popular option its turned into selection system like a
Goldman sachs graduate recruitment program. Precisely because its those type
of people running these things.

Fundamentally i'm not sure they have the same character as the previous
entrepreneurs. Those guys specifically chose to take the risky untrodden path.
That said something about their personality. That could be the piece that
makes a successful entrepreneur.

Its not like that anymore, so the people choosing to do it are a different
breed. They are more like people who go to work for investment banks now.

~~~
lpsz
Why do young founders participate in these accelerators? Aside from the
(arguably small) amount of money, I think that participation gives them the
feeling of "permission" to actually create the business they want.

I wonder how many realize that they could build the same business just as well
on their own (assuming proper willpower, and all.)

~~~
6cxs2hd6
Although not a quick read, the go-to analysis of this is "Entrepreneurs Are
the New Labor" [^1].

On this theory, the balance of power has shifted to investors, who prefer
founders from an institution. And perhaps a certain generation of young adults
welcomes this sort of structure more than others might.

Which isn't to say that incubators don't have great value for many people.
They do. But they're not the only way to go about starting many businesses,
you're correct.

[^1]:
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/venkateshrao/2012/09/03/entrepre...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/venkateshrao/2012/09/03/entrepreneurs-
are-the-new-labor-part-i/)

~~~
robin2
TL;DR? See [http://www.slideshare.net/vgururao/usc-
annenberg](http://www.slideshare.net/vgururao/usc-annenberg) (slide 7 in
particular)

On a related point, am I the only one who notices the language coming out of
the Silicon Valley ecosystem (the war for talent, the need to identify star
performers) and is reminded of Malcolm Gladwell's assessment of Enron's
corporate culture ([http://gladwell.com/the-talent-
myth/](http://gladwell.com/the-talent-myth/))?

------
roberthahn
This seems so… retarded. "YC 'zigs', so we're going to 'out-zig' them?"
Seriously?

Someone should try 'zagging' and seek older people with this kind of
enthusiasm to develop startups. With their real-world experience and domain
knowledge, I bet the kinds of companies experienced people create would be a
lot more interesting. And, in aggregate, more successful.

-old(er) and cranky entrepreneur.

~~~
pitt1980
I see this reply all the time

I feel like there is undue offense being taken here

I'm not sure that older entrepreneurs are fertile ground for accelerators

not because older enterpreneurs are worse than young enterprenuers (the
opposite is probably almost obviously true), but more because the types of
funding that most accelerators are giving out can't really complete with what
most 30+ year old can self fund

someone who's been making a programmer's salary for 10+ years, probably
doesn't need the relative pittances that accelerators throw out,

they've also probably built a personal network such that what what
accelerators provide isn't all that valuable

~~~
roberthahn
I disagree on all counts. You're making generalities that can be falsified.
And no one has done the homework to figure out what's really going on.

It is possible for an older entrepreneur to not have the kind of funding
you're suggesting. I'm one.

It is possible that an older entrepreneur had the kind of career that didn't
encourage the development of a network of connections useful for building a
business. This is (mostly) also true for me.

I count myself lucky - I'm part of an incredible program that provides me with
a basic living expense (my wife makes up the rest), and access to advisors,
lawyers, bookkeepers, marketers, sales people and negotiators to teach me the
knowledge and skills that I lack. I could not have gotten this far on my own.

But the point I was making is that there seems to be such a focus on getting
young people (what's next? high school grads?) that there's a much richer,
more experienced field of opportunity being ignored.

Or at least underreported on HN :-)

~~~
pitt1980
I don't want to make this personal

everyone is diffent, there are people all over all sorts of these spectrums

also I too have experienced annoyance at marketing targeted at a population
I'm not a member of

that said, if you simply look at it from a "who is it easy to add value too?"
perspective

the younger you skew these things, the easier it is to add value

or inversely, the older you skew, the harder it is to add value

you have diminishing returns to covering a few months living expenses and
bring in a group of contacts

that represents a good (deal/value add) for virtually all 22(?) year olds, the
older you make your target, the increasing smaller percentage of people for
whom that represents a good (deal/value add)

~~~
roberthahn
It's a good argument. You're right - it is easier to add value to the 22yo
demographic.

I just don't think it's particularly wise. :))

~~~
pitt1980
fair enough,

best of luck with your startup, that's an impressive undertaking at any age as
far as I'm concerned

------
jordn
I believe that the founders of EF have not set out with the idea of it being a
‘pre-accelerator,' leeching talent before YC or banks can get their hands on
it. I do think they solving a genuine problem in the supporting startup
ecosystem, particularly in the UK.

I spent a year at MIT and it was hard to avoid people that were working on
cool ideas and starting up. Students chose most of their classes, and each
class generally had a culture of creating something in a project. As a result,
a lot of students would experience working on building something cool with a
variety of people. That, combined with a very supportive environment, meant
that it was much more accessible to startup if you wanted to.

In the UK (or at least Cambridge) there are fewer people considering creating
a startup. The UK university system also places more focus on end-of-year
exams rather than project work. It's harder to come across finding the right
combination of people, ideas and motivations that is needed to create a
startup. Most ‘entrepreneurial’ societies tend to be full of the bullshitty
types and smartest people default to jobs in finance or consulting.

So it's partly bringing together smart people, partly the legitimacy of not
feeling the need to go into a corporate job ourselves, that I think make ideas
like EF broadly work. That being said, the model still has its problems.
Forming teams with people you've no prior experience of only works in a
handful of cases. Thankfully the programme is long enough to try several
combinations of teams. Even so, I believe all the people that have gone
through it but haven't ended up continuing with a company (like me) still
value the contacts and learning experience thoroughly.

 _Disclaimer: I 've just finished EF as part of their 2013 cohort._

~~~
hga
Demonstrating an ability to do projects is one of the things MIT looks for in
undergraduate applications. Almost certainly one of the things that put mine
over the top.

And, yeah, doing projects, in class _or outside_ , is a big part of what MIT
is about.

------
neverminder
So this looks like a bait for fresh graduates, because more seasoned
professionals know that good jobs are hard to come by. I'm a software
engineer, I live 50 miles north off London and I'm looking for a job there. My
spam folder receives a daily dose of "LAMP developers needed", ".NET
engineers", "Fontend jQuery wizzard" and other similar offers that I'm less
than excited about, but jobs with leading technologies that I work with and
want to continue working with (Scala, AngularJS, etc) are nowhere to be found.
What does Enterpreneur First think they can fix here?

~~~
lifeisstillgood
You are not alone, but there are two or three fixes I can think of

\- Start up your own startup

\- work for a startup (silicon roundabout does an email list) I get the
impression (and thats about all) that there are a lot of startups who would
like experienced London developers to build them their MVP - price is probably
the issue.

\- Why just stick to London - everyone _says_ Remote is possible :-)

Sorry not really answering the question - I just don't think the traditional
apply for a job via a recruiter thing works anymore. I just am not sure what
is replacing it.

~~~
neil_s
Could you link me to the mailing list for the Roundabout? I've joined a Meetup
or two, but haven't found this list.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
London-Silicon-Roundabout-announce@meetup.com

seems the right one

------
pgt
Having experienced first-hand the hiring competition of Big Co's, I started
recruiting second and third year Comp. Sci. students for internships. You have
to invest a lot more time and effort in training and mentorship, but it pays
to build a solid working relationship before they are recruited by the
corporate competition (Amazon, Facebook). I have had some good results, but it
is hard to scale. Other activities that make it easier to hire is to regularly
speak about interesting topics at your local university and demo interesting
projects. Deliver value, and others will follow.

------
thaumasiotes
This reminds me of nothing so much as the Harvard (any selective college,
really) model of recruitment: try to admit a pool of people you think stand a
good chance of huge success later. (The university model's step two is "when
they get it, ask them for money and hope they remember you fondly", which
seems to work OK but I imagine will be replaced with "when they're admitted,
make them promise to give you money later" by these guys.)

Fundamentally, you have the options of selecting for demonstrated achievement
and selecting for potential. You can assess potential much earlier, so it
really is a good way to scoop other people looking for the same thing.

It's also less accurate. But there's got to be a business model in there
somewhere.

------
malanj
_His view is that there will be two accelerators left in the world – YC and
the few that manage to survive on investing in startups created by the people
who didn’t take it into YC._

It seems strange that he's focusing on YC if he's based in the UK? I'd imagine
that YC has very limited reach in the UK. My understanding is that the startup
ecosystem in the UK and Europe is still very underdeveloped (i.e. lots of
opportunities for funds) so worrying about competition on a different
continent seems unnecessary

~~~
neil_s
It's funny that you're commenting on HN, which is just one of the tools YC
uses to capture a global mindshare. Aspiring entrepreneurs around the world
now know about YC's track record, so it is kind of hard to justify choosing
say Techstars UK or Techpeaks if you also get admitted to YC. The startup
ecosystem is indeed not as mature in UK/Europe as it in the Valley, but not
for lack of informed, aspiring entrepreneurs, but lack of accelerators and
funds that are as reputed as YC.

------
ccallebs
Jake Lodwick (Vimeo co-founder) was doing this with Elepath. I interviewed
with them about 2 years ago and he was building the team before he had a
product goal.

Honestly, with the amount of start-ups pivoting into new spaces when their
original business plan isn't fully realized, this doesn't seem like a bad
plan. Build a team that can execute on ideas -- that seems to be the hard part
anyway.

------
BrownBuffalo
Basically the Minor Leagues of YC -> which is fine, but call it what it is.

------
teemo_cute
I once read a post from a company's founder who is involved in the business of
hiring fresh talents for tech companies.

Basically, what he does is whine and whine about the lack of talent because
most fresh graduates want to build a start-up for themselves instead of
joining a company.

He tries to convince fresh graduates that they are better of joining
established companies because most startups fail anyway. It seems like people
distort their values when it comes to self-interest.

I said he does so because he is once the founder of a startup himself. Why
would he discourage others from doing the same.

------
michaelochurch
YC isn't just about getting the best talent. Some YC founders are clearly very
good, others are unimpressive. I've seen the whole spectrum.

YC could pick its crowd at random (not to imply that it does; it doesn't) and
it would still work. A few bozos would get in and be likely to fail, but it
wouldn't be remarkable considering the statistical noise already in the
startup game.

Venture capital is a feudalistic reputation economy, and YC is a case of Paul
Graham monetizing his reputation. Just being YC establishes that a startup has
real potential and puts it ahead of the teeming masses. Paul Graham wouldn't
have to do anything to make YC a winning trade for him and the startups.

Before anyone says I'm being unduly cynical, let me fill out a few of my
points. First, Paul Graham earned much of that reputation. He's a good writer,
he understands Lisp at a deep level, and his technical chops are strong even
by engineer standards and put him ahead of 99% of financiers. Second, I'm sure
that YC's picks are better than its rejects. Third, I'm sure he worked really
hard on the YC program. My point is only that he doesn't have to. He could
pick startups at random, do absolutely nothing, and it'd still work,
financially speaking.

Can anyone replicate this? Probably not. Paul Graham deserves credit for
carrying the banner. In 2002-4, the mainstream business world had written
startups off and people believed there'd never be another 1990s-style tech
boom (which was mostly froth, but had a lot of genuine substance). Paul Graham
pointed people back to the truths that the dot-bomb-shocked business
mainstream was prepared to discard, like (a) that technology really matters,
(b) small businesses can be extremely efficient, and (c) smart people require
a different management style that most corporations don't get. He deserves a
lot of credit for keeping the banner in the air in the gloomy early and
mid-2000s. That right move, on his part, is a major reason _why_ he has a
monetizeable reputation. Is that feat replicable? Probably not.

