>>> "YC is pretty explicit that they try to pick founders, not ideas, most of the time. That approach is all over the Startup School videos, for example; they don't exactly make a secret of it."
If Y Combinator truly prioritizes founders over ideas, as indicated in their Startup School videos, repeated rejections might suggest a fundamental mismatch. If you haven't been accepted after one or two tries, it may be a signal that you're not the type of founder they're looking to fund. People do not change that much usually.
I don't know what YC thinks about this, but I disagree with this pretty strongly. None of the skills or advantages I think I have as a founder were things I had five years ago. I would never in a million years have been able to do even the things I've done in the last 24 hours if I had tried to when I first arrived in the Bay Area for my first "real" job.
People's fundamental values and motivations usually don't change that much, but their philosophy, resilience, and pool of cached ideas absolutely can. That's especially true for people who, like me, came in from outside. It takes time to get your bearings and learn how business is done, what things matter and what things don't, what a normal level of "on fire" is, and even a person with a low of raw intellectual ability/domain talent still needs time to train their internal models.
You'd be right if YC were perfect at assessing founders every time, but of course they're not. Applying repeatedly gives you a chance to prove that they got you wrong the first time (and the second, and the third, and so on, if need be). Not only does this work, it's the majority case (I just double checked this). Most founders that YC funds are repeat applicants.
Applying repeatedly demonstrates persistence, which is one of the qualities YC looks for. Better still, if you can show continued progress since your previous application, that demonstrates resourcefulness, another core quality. Repeated applications can move the needle on what sort of founder YC thinks you are. Especially if you were a borderline call the last time—keeping going, and applying again, is a way to get on the other side of the line.
YC frequently heralds persistence as the most reliable indicator of future success. However, a closer look at their selection practices reveals a profound contradiction. Despite their public endorsement of this trait, YC often rejects applicants who demonstrate true persistence by reapplying after initial failures. In contrast, they appear to favor individuals with prestigious academic or corporate backgrounds—those who might be perceived as career opportunists lacking deep commitment to their ventures—over genuinely dedicated founders.
This pattern not only questions the sincerity of YC's stated values but also suggests a broader inconsistency. If such a discrepancy exists in their evaluation of persistence, one can reasonably doubt the authenticity of other virtues YC promotes. This insight casts a shadow over the overall integrity of their selection criteria, hinting that what YC publicizes may not always align with their actual priorities.
Persistence is not "the most reliable indicator". It's possible to be persistent at something that isn't working and isn't going to work (I know; I've done it). That's not useful, so persistence is far from sufficient. It is necessary though.
If there's a most-reliable-indicator at all, it would be something like what pg called 'relentless resourcefulness'. The includes persistence and a lot of other things as well.
YC has increasingly come to resemble a selective community, with an almost cult-like allure. It presents itself to a broad audience, yet only those who share its unique ethos are granted admission. Nowadays, many applicants use the platform not just for entrepreneurial ventures but also to enhance their resumes. Consequently, a number of them lack genuine commitment.
Moreover, YC is notorious for advocating an intense work ethic—bordering on having no life outside of work—and for creating a tightly-knit community that some liken to a mob. Although these dynamics are not universally appreciated, many individuals join to benefit from the network. Nepotism also plays a role, as mediocre founders who have personal connections with partners often find an easier path in. In addition, there is a prevalent sense of self-deception among the members who offer startup and life advice, advice they themselves might not be equipped to provide. This is particularly questionable in today’s era of AI and new technologies, which challenges the relevance of their supposed wisdom.
Despite these criticisms, if you are young, hungry, and perhaps a bit naïve, giving YC a try could be worthwhile if you feel your vibe might align with theirs.
It is absolutely a cult which preys on the naïve. It’s amazing that young founders give up equity so cheaply to chase credentials that pay so poorly, on average, relative to FAANG.
Someone will win in every YC batch, and it’s YC itself, which holds all the lottery tickets. Most everyone else loses.
In asymmetric high risk/reward environments, what YC does is not unusual. When a trade has 99% of failing but 1% will pay for all the bets and then some, you simply cannot take large positional bets that results in equal power dynamics.
They've built something heavily coveted and exclusive that people participating cannot see that they are gambling with their time and life.
It's very comforting to founders to feel safety in numbers when operating in an illiquid market (the goal is to sell your shares to a buyer whether its secondary market or IPO) but know this:
Illiquid markets are rife with manipulation and false positives.
If Y Combinator truly prioritizes founders over ideas, as indicated in their Startup School videos, repeated rejections might suggest a fundamental mismatch. If you haven't been accepted after one or two tries, it may be a signal that you're not the type of founder they're looking to fund. People do not change that much usually.