Some things to do (and not do) if you aren't invited to interview with YC
45 comments
Another thing I'd ask people not to do is write to us asking for the details of why they weren't invited. We explain in the YC FAQ that we won't, but every cycle people deluge us with emails anyway.
It's not because we're being secretive that we don't answer these emails. The reason is that there generally are no details to give. Usually when we don't invite a group for interviews, it's not because there was some glaring flaw in the application, but simply because nothing in it jumped out at us.
It's not because we're being secretive that we don't answer these emails. The reason is that there generally are no details to give. Usually when we don't invite a group for interviews, it's not because there was some glaring flaw in the application, but simply because nothing in it jumped out at us.
This reminds me of the application process to Yale. To get int you've got to be really good -- top of your class, top of the district. But, that's not enough - lots of people of that caliber apply. You've got to have something about your application that makes you stand out, that makes you special. You will simply stick in the recruiter's mind. And in this case, stickiness is good.
It's the same thing when you're creating a startup -- you got to stand out.
It's the same thing when you're creating a startup -- you got to stand out.
Amherst does the same thing. However, Amherst's Dean of Admission then recites all the little factoids that stuck out at the regional receptions for admitted students. (This is always lampooned - hilariously - at the RC show, where upperclassmen put their own spin on it for incoming freshmen.)
One of the factoids taken from my application was "One student took 8 AP tests, scoring 5s on 5 of them, without ever having taken an AP class." And I remember thinking, "What a dumb thing to fixate upon! My school didn't offer APs, so I couldn't take the courses. And the test was only $75 and could let me place out of several thousand dollars of college credit, so I'm not going to let something silly like not having taken the course stop me." My application had plenty of other impressive things on it, like starting a dot-com run exclusively by teenagers and watching it fail or placing tops in a couple of national math competitions. Yet what stuck out for them was the test scores.
I guess the moral is to put down everything that might conceivably be impressive, because you never know what'll stick in the mind of the admissions person.
One of the factoids taken from my application was "One student took 8 AP tests, scoring 5s on 5 of them, without ever having taken an AP class." And I remember thinking, "What a dumb thing to fixate upon! My school didn't offer APs, so I couldn't take the courses. And the test was only $75 and could let me place out of several thousand dollars of college credit, so I'm not going to let something silly like not having taken the course stop me." My application had plenty of other impressive things on it, like starting a dot-com run exclusively by teenagers and watching it fail or placing tops in a couple of national math competitions. Yet what stuck out for them was the test scores.
I guess the moral is to put down everything that might conceivably be impressive, because you never know what'll stick in the mind of the admissions person.
> And I remember thinking, "What a dumb thing to fixate upon! My school didn't offer APs, so I couldn't take the courses. And the test was only $75 and could let me place out of several thousand dollars of college credit, so I'm not going to let something silly like not having taken the course stop me."
If I were an admissions officer, I'd be a lot more impressed by that line of reasoning than by the result. When I was in high school, AP exams had this impenetrable mystique about them, like they're the Weighing of the Heart in Duat or something. From the perspective of the school administrators it was even more ridiculous. My school didn't offer AP Comp Sci, but I wanted to the take the AP exam anyway. When I asked the principal about it, he almost went into conniptions, because if I failed the exam it would mean that the school would be on public record with a 0% pass rate. Eventually I got him to agree to let me take the introductory CS course at the local community college for high school credit, and then take the lower-level of the two Comp Sci exams offered. (This was a fantastic deal for me, because it meant I got to leave that hellhole two hours early every day, and then sit down in the computer lab at BCC, ssh into my home computer, and play Nethack while the instructor gave his sixth lecture on 'for' loops.)
The mystique is total bullshit, of course. AP exams test a very small body of knowledge that you can acquire by sitting down with a Barrons or Princeton Review book for a week or two. The Calculus and Physics exams are a partial exception, because they require some degree of understanding rather than just regurgitation, but that degree is minimal. The fact that you saw through this charade speaks a lot more highly of your character than your scores do.
If I were an admissions officer, I'd be a lot more impressed by that line of reasoning than by the result. When I was in high school, AP exams had this impenetrable mystique about them, like they're the Weighing of the Heart in Duat or something. From the perspective of the school administrators it was even more ridiculous. My school didn't offer AP Comp Sci, but I wanted to the take the AP exam anyway. When I asked the principal about it, he almost went into conniptions, because if I failed the exam it would mean that the school would be on public record with a 0% pass rate. Eventually I got him to agree to let me take the introductory CS course at the local community college for high school credit, and then take the lower-level of the two Comp Sci exams offered. (This was a fantastic deal for me, because it meant I got to leave that hellhole two hours early every day, and then sit down in the computer lab at BCC, ssh into my home computer, and play Nethack while the instructor gave his sixth lecture on 'for' loops.)
The mystique is total bullshit, of course. AP exams test a very small body of knowledge that you can acquire by sitting down with a Barrons or Princeton Review book for a week or two. The Calculus and Physics exams are a partial exception, because they require some degree of understanding rather than just regurgitation, but that degree is minimal. The fact that you saw through this charade speaks a lot more highly of your character than your scores do.
Whoa, I checked out their website and it looks to be a pretty sweet school. I was homeschooled for a significant portion of my life, and I really liked the open endedness of it all. That's when I was truly motivated to learn for its own sake. I read voraciously and taught myself to program so as to make games. Then I started going to public school where they happened to not like new Americans much:P Anyways, here's hoping that model of education catches on much more widely.
Amherst generally wavers between being the top ranked, and second ranked, liberal arts college in the country, based on the US News and World Report rankings.
This 'rejection without a stated reason' is common practice - and poor practice wherever it may be found, ie recruitment, vc, men/women relationships, record companies and many places else.
The ease by which even minimal feedback can be given which can lead to great benefit to the recipient is obvious, and therefore should be embraced. There may be risks that the recipient makes some kind of rebuttal and wastes time, the reasoning itself behind the rejection causes bad publicity or the feedback process takes time however the benefits to the [in this case YC] ecosystem I think outweigh the disadvantages.
The ease by which even minimal feedback can be given which can lead to great benefit to the recipient is obvious, and therefore should be embraced. There may be risks that the recipient makes some kind of rebuttal and wastes time, the reasoning itself behind the rejection causes bad publicity or the feedback process takes time however the benefits to the [in this case YC] ecosystem I think outweigh the disadvantages.
This is not particulary related to YC or startup, but a general advice.
I've been, and still occasionally am, in both sides---sometimes in a position of selecting people, and more likely, in a position being selected. And I can assert the observation PG stated somewhere in one of his essays---in almost all circumstances there are a few stand-outs, a few obvious inferiors, and large number of the rest in the middle ground. Unless you're in either extremes, whether you pass or fail largely depends on small bits of random factors. And it doesn't help whether you know which of those small factors you missed. Because in highly competitive fields, you have to get into the few stand-outs eventually. Don't take the real life tests as if they are school exams where you can earn several points here and there to cover up some minus points elsewhere. You can tell excellent work from not-so-great work, can't you? Just aim at excellent work. If you think your work is less than excellent, then that's the reason you're rejected. If you think you did an excellent work and still rejected, then they are wrong.
I've been, and still occasionally am, in both sides---sometimes in a position of selecting people, and more likely, in a position being selected. And I can assert the observation PG stated somewhere in one of his essays---in almost all circumstances there are a few stand-outs, a few obvious inferiors, and large number of the rest in the middle ground. Unless you're in either extremes, whether you pass or fail largely depends on small bits of random factors. And it doesn't help whether you know which of those small factors you missed. Because in highly competitive fields, you have to get into the few stand-outs eventually. Don't take the real life tests as if they are school exams where you can earn several points here and there to cover up some minus points elsewhere. You can tell excellent work from not-so-great work, can't you? Just aim at excellent work. If you think your work is less than excellent, then that's the reason you're rejected. If you think you did an excellent work and still rejected, then they are wrong.
I remember a story about a Swedish manager accepting job applications for software developers in 2003. Typically permanent job postings would get hundreds of applicants back then.
In any case, this busy manager had 200 unread applications to evaluate. He had perhaps a day or two to do this in. The first thing the manager did was to grab half of the applications from the pile and remark, "you see these people. They are unlucky. And we don't want to hire unlucky people." And with this he threw these applications into the trash.
A lot about success is playing the numbers game and not freaking out/wasting time over rejection. Of course that is easier said than done.
In any case, this busy manager had 200 unread applications to evaluate. He had perhaps a day or two to do this in. The first thing the manager did was to grab half of the applications from the pile and remark, "you see these people. They are unlucky. And we don't want to hire unlucky people." And with this he threw these applications into the trash.
A lot about success is playing the numbers game and not freaking out/wasting time over rejection. Of course that is easier said than done.
poor practice wherever it may be found
Sure you want to commit to that blanket statement? Do you expect every woman in every room you walk into to stop and think about why you didn't draw her attention, and then come and tell you?
Sure you want to commit to that blanket statement? Do you expect every woman in every room you walk into to stop and think about why you didn't draw her attention, and then come and tell you?
I can't speak for adrianwaj, but here's my approach:
In general, I'm not seeking sexual interest from every woman in the room. In fact, there's quite a few I'm specifically seeking to avoid.
For those I am interested in, I make every effort to look good and be an engaging, interesting person. I'm fit, I dress well, I'm good looking and can engage strangers in conversation easily, and usually make them laugh.
If a woman I'm interested in still isn't interested in me after I've engaged her (and provided I'm still interested in her after the conversing with her) I ask myself why. If I don't know the answer, I think it's quite reasonable to politely ask her.
Conversely, though, I'm prepared to accept her reasons why. For example, she might believe that I'm rough, but even if I know this not to be the case, I know there's a reason for this perception.
Or she might prefer something I'm not willing to be - eg, really big guys - I'm tall and thin and can't be bothered spending more than a few days at the gym. Fair enough, it would have never worked out.
But sometimes I find out something that's really valuable, and I can take that and work on it. I have to be in a frame of mind that makes her comfortable to be honest and direct.
Unfortunately, there's probably a lot of guys who don't realize there's a reason behind her perception, or who would argue about why they're they the right guy. These guys make it hard for girls to be honest for those of us who are interested in the basis for a perception, rather using it as a pretext to continuing to attempt to be accepted.
These also have no idea how many other great looking, witty girls there are, and put too much value on one opinion.
Everything above is applicable to YCombinator.
In general, I'm not seeking sexual interest from every woman in the room. In fact, there's quite a few I'm specifically seeking to avoid.
For those I am interested in, I make every effort to look good and be an engaging, interesting person. I'm fit, I dress well, I'm good looking and can engage strangers in conversation easily, and usually make them laugh.
If a woman I'm interested in still isn't interested in me after I've engaged her (and provided I'm still interested in her after the conversing with her) I ask myself why. If I don't know the answer, I think it's quite reasonable to politely ask her.
Conversely, though, I'm prepared to accept her reasons why. For example, she might believe that I'm rough, but even if I know this not to be the case, I know there's a reason for this perception.
Or she might prefer something I'm not willing to be - eg, really big guys - I'm tall and thin and can't be bothered spending more than a few days at the gym. Fair enough, it would have never worked out.
But sometimes I find out something that's really valuable, and I can take that and work on it. I have to be in a frame of mind that makes her comfortable to be honest and direct.
Unfortunately, there's probably a lot of guys who don't realize there's a reason behind her perception, or who would argue about why they're they the right guy. These guys make it hard for girls to be honest for those of us who are interested in the basis for a perception, rather using it as a pretext to continuing to attempt to be accepted.
These also have no idea how many other great looking, witty girls there are, and put too much value on one opinion.
Everything above is applicable to YCombinator.
It's a generalized statement about a principle. See my remark below (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=68962) about publishers/authors.
so, are you suggesting canidates demo in spandex?
Not trying to pile on, but I'm curious to what sort of feedback "nothing in there really caught our eye" would engender. A request for YC to look more closely? I mean, at some point these are qualitative measurements. Even if you had absolute knowledge, it wouldn't make things any better. Did the reviewer have a bad burrito for lunch? Is your name Bob and the reviewer unconsciously hates all people named Bob? Was there a great application just before yours, and even though yours might be acceptable, by comparison it didn't look so good? Were you the first ones evaluated (reviewers are notorious for rejecting early applicants)
I exaggerate, of course, but whatever reason you get I can guarantee won't be satisfying. I mean, you can go to the store tomorrow and pick up a huge stack of books on selling, which all boil down to "Sometimes you strike out for no reason at all. Keep trying" In a vain attempt to pump readers for money, some books give you a huge list of reasons for why you can strike out. I'm a firm believer in controlling all those factors you can -- wear the power tie, turn the temperature down in the office, sit in the proper locations in an important meeting, use body language and NLP, show instead of tell, etc. But I've never had a client say "You know Daniel, we really like your work, but gosh, those shoes are just not doing it for us". That kind of thinking is just grasping at straws. It never works that way.
Look at it this way: a couple of years ago I sent a business plan into a local VC group for their paid-evaluation service (pretty good deal for them, huh?). This time, for my $200, I got back a bunch of comments. What did they tell me? That the reviewers were idiots, that's what. And how exactly could I use this information? Except to be bitter, not at all. So not knowing when it's qualitative is a pretty good thing. As for me, I'd rather save my money and get rejected for free.
I exaggerate, of course, but whatever reason you get I can guarantee won't be satisfying. I mean, you can go to the store tomorrow and pick up a huge stack of books on selling, which all boil down to "Sometimes you strike out for no reason at all. Keep trying" In a vain attempt to pump readers for money, some books give you a huge list of reasons for why you can strike out. I'm a firm believer in controlling all those factors you can -- wear the power tie, turn the temperature down in the office, sit in the proper locations in an important meeting, use body language and NLP, show instead of tell, etc. But I've never had a client say "You know Daniel, we really like your work, but gosh, those shoes are just not doing it for us". That kind of thinking is just grasping at straws. It never works that way.
Look at it this way: a couple of years ago I sent a business plan into a local VC group for their paid-evaluation service (pretty good deal for them, huh?). This time, for my $200, I got back a bunch of comments. What did they tell me? That the reviewers were idiots, that's what. And how exactly could I use this information? Except to be bitter, not at all. So not knowing when it's qualitative is a pretty good thing. As for me, I'd rather save my money and get rejected for free.
A great VC can say more than just 'no' but can pinpoint exactly why they said no. If it is a gut feeling then they should be able to elaborate on that gut feeling.
I got comments once from judges in a startup competition and they were harsh, and offered no imaginative answers.
I got comments once from judges in a startup competition and they were harsh, and offered no imaginative answers.
Ok, don't confuse the cases where giving feedback benefits both parties and where it doesn't.
In most selections that draws a "pass or fail" line among applicants, giving feedback benefits neither. I explained the reason in my comment in this tree ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=68895 ). I assume whether you're called back for YC interview or not is this kind.
What I didn't explain is that there are other cases; where "the few stand-outs" compete and ultimately the winner is chosen. If you couldn't win because of your shortcomings (that is, you would've won if you hadn't had them), then you should know what dragged you. But you don't need to worry; in such cases, somebody will tell you the reason you couldn't win. Most likely, in such circumstances, the officials make comments on each candidates. Even if there's no official comments, sombody inside will eventually tell you that you were so close.
Of course anybody who wants to improve himself needs feedback. But when you're in the first kind of selection and can't make it, those who made selection are wrong person to ask feedback.
In most selections that draws a "pass or fail" line among applicants, giving feedback benefits neither. I explained the reason in my comment in this tree ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=68895 ). I assume whether you're called back for YC interview or not is this kind.
What I didn't explain is that there are other cases; where "the few stand-outs" compete and ultimately the winner is chosen. If you couldn't win because of your shortcomings (that is, you would've won if you hadn't had them), then you should know what dragged you. But you don't need to worry; in such cases, somebody will tell you the reason you couldn't win. Most likely, in such circumstances, the officials make comments on each candidates. Even if there's no official comments, sombody inside will eventually tell you that you were so close.
Of course anybody who wants to improve himself needs feedback. But when you're in the first kind of selection and can't make it, those who made selection are wrong person to ask feedback.
I guess VCs do become consultant-like, but only once a company is funded. Up until that stage, there may be no point, unless of course the relationship with the entrepreneur is valued enough to do so. As a solution, how about YC offering public feedback to the rejected applicants willing to expose themselves publicly. Also, I am curious to know if scorecards are used.
Also, it would be great to see a YC applicant actually develop a system for the applications themselves making feedback and follow-up easier for YC staff.
So, if systems were in place to handle these types of apply-check-judge-accept/reject-feedback-followup processes better, I'm confident better outcomes could be reached.
Anaphoric's comment (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=68979) such a system could be used by that manager who rejects at random.
Also, it would be great to see a YC applicant actually develop a system for the applications themselves making feedback and follow-up easier for YC staff.
So, if systems were in place to handle these types of apply-check-judge-accept/reject-feedback-followup processes better, I'm confident better outcomes could be reached.
Anaphoric's comment (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=68979) such a system could be used by that manager who rejects at random.
whether YC will do something or not is beyond my concern, but as a general remark, could such feedback loop encourage applicants to fit into criteria to pass that particular system instead of their actual goals (building successful startup)?
The same remark can be applied to other fields; recruitment, record companies, auditions to cast a role, men/women relationships, .... what's common here is that, although you can tell success or failure retrospectively, you cannot nail down the systematic criteria beforehand.
The same remark can be applied to other fields; recruitment, record companies, auditions to cast a role, men/women relationships, .... what's common here is that, although you can tell success or failure retrospectively, you cannot nail down the systematic criteria beforehand.
Just to jump in here, there's also a measure of agility that is required. Having any sort of formalized system based on criteria assumes by its nature that those criteria are always going to be true. Anybody who's been watching the tech world for more than five years knows that's not true.
Not to mention the issues that come up once the system is changed. If the system is changed next year, and some companies that failed under the old system would pass under the new system, wouldn't that be a huge problem?
You're taking people at the top of their game, with knowledge in the industry and technology, and having them make a fine-tuned judgment call.All this for a dynamically changing business environment. If the decision is of a well-considered and thoughtful nature at all, that's going to be very hard to systematize. The more you formalize it the more you lose your special sauce. There are qualitative scorecard-type solutions, but those by nature are personal opinions and would have to remain proprietary.
Not to mention the issues that come up once the system is changed. If the system is changed next year, and some companies that failed under the old system would pass under the new system, wouldn't that be a huge problem?
You're taking people at the top of their game, with knowledge in the industry and technology, and having them make a fine-tuned judgment call.All this for a dynamically changing business environment. If the decision is of a well-considered and thoughtful nature at all, that's going to be very hard to systematize. The more you formalize it the more you lose your special sauce. There are qualitative scorecard-type solutions, but those by nature are personal opinions and would have to remain proprietary.
[deleted]
PG: If you read through an application where nothing "jumped out", but the team had a fully functional web app to look at and the idea was interesting, would you ignore the web app?
I'm not entirely sure they look at referenced URLs. They were seemingly entirely taken by surprise that we were launched and had paying customers when we arrived in Boston for the interview and had a demo to show. (But, maybe they'd just forgotten, based on the fact that they'd seen 300-400 applications, and probably at least half as many websites.)
Which brings up the advice I've given to folks that I've talked to about getting to the interview: Demo early. We only had a couple of minutes to demo, after running through everyone's questions...and it was almost certainly only on the strength of the demo that we got the yes.
Which brings up the advice I've given to folks that I've talked to about getting to the interview: Demo early. We only had a couple of minutes to demo, after running through everyone's questions...and it was almost certainly only on the strength of the demo that we got the yes.
I think we knew you were launched when we read your application, but we'd archived that by the time you arrived for the interview.
One of the weird consequences of dealing with very large numbers of startups is that you really can't remember anything except essentials. When the 19 new startups showed up for the first dinner this summer, I probably could have only told you what 3 or 4 of them were doing. The rest had to remind me. (Of course, once the summer gets going, I keep them all loaded in memory all the time.)
One of the weird consequences of dealing with very large numbers of startups is that you really can't remember anything except essentials. When the 19 new startups showed up for the first dinner this summer, I probably could have only told you what 3 or 4 of them were doing. The rest had to remind me. (Of course, once the summer gets going, I keep them all loaded in memory all the time.)
Just like many of us have succeeded regardless of which college we went to (or were rejected by), we can also succeed regardless of whether we're accepted by YC. Sure YC will help tremendously in some cases, but ultimately there is no single path to success. Reacting positively to whatever is thrown at you, under any circumstances will inevitably lead to success.
Whether you believe you can or whether you believe you can't, you are right. --attributed to Henry Ford.
Entrepreneurs make it because they choose to, not because someone gives them the opportunity. The opportunity is always there, the question is whether or not you choose to make it happen. I've been reading "founders at work" and it surprises me that their opportunities were where they least expected it.
So, cheer up and keep dreaming!
Entrepreneurs make it because they choose to, not because someone gives them the opportunity. The opportunity is always there, the question is whether or not you choose to make it happen. I've been reading "founders at work" and it surprises me that their opportunities were where they least expected it.
So, cheer up and keep dreaming!
Before you hear back, you could do what we did - assume you got rejected.
What would you do today if you knew you were rejected already?
Hint: for bonus points, assume that YC is out to get you, and gives your brilliant idea[s] to some other shmucks.
Strap down and build. Don't get bogged down in details.
What would you do today if you knew you were rejected already?
Hint: for bonus points, assume that YC is out to get you, and gives your brilliant idea[s] to some other shmucks.
Strap down and build. Don't get bogged down in details.
As great as YC and Paul Graham's writings are, and as much as they are helping create a extraordinary startup community, there will always be many ways to success in a tech startup. Take 37signals, for example - they suggest that you get no outside funding, and make your startup on the side (while working or going to school). They also suggest that location and distance is completely irrelevant in the internet age. If I remember correctly, worked on their initial products from across the world.
Now, statistically speaking, YC companies probably has a higher success rate than the 37signals model, but your life is not a statistic. Focus on making something people want.
Now, statistically speaking, YC companies probably has a higher success rate than the 37signals model, but your life is not a statistic. Focus on making something people want.
> but you can still be very successful without YC
Sure, but let's face it, to be "under YC" makes you much more able to hit success, all the other things being the same.
This is not exactly fair, but it's how things work.
Sure, but let's face it, to be "under YC" makes you much more able to hit success, all the other things being the same.
This is not exactly fair, but it's how things work.
So does being Bill Gates' cousin, winning the SuperBowl, saving a kid from a burning building, having good parents, etc.
Some of this stuff is random, some of this stuff you can make happen, and some is a combination. YC is a combination. They're doing their best to figure out who to pick and you're doing your best to make your company work. Golden rule of being self-employed: NEVER focus on one opportunity or plan. Always have several things going. And be flexible about it.
What's PG say their success rate is? Something like 50%? Sure -- it'd be great to be in a graduating class, but getting into YC is NOT like passing a test. You don't control it and even for the people who do control it, it's a crap shoot. It's more like bumping into some folks in the hall and chatting a bit and giving them your business card. Maybe they'll call. Maybe not. Don't get your hopes on it. How much can you really convey to somebody by bumping into them and chatting in the hall?
Some of this stuff is random, some of this stuff you can make happen, and some is a combination. YC is a combination. They're doing their best to figure out who to pick and you're doing your best to make your company work. Golden rule of being self-employed: NEVER focus on one opportunity or plan. Always have several things going. And be flexible about it.
What's PG say their success rate is? Something like 50%? Sure -- it'd be great to be in a graduating class, but getting into YC is NOT like passing a test. You don't control it and even for the people who do control it, it's a crap shoot. It's more like bumping into some folks in the hall and chatting a bit and giving them your business card. Maybe they'll call. Maybe not. Don't get your hopes on it. How much can you really convey to somebody by bumping into them and chatting in the hall?
"How much can you really convey to somebody by bumping into them and chatting in the hall?"
You can listen to what the other person has to say.
You can listen to what the other person has to say.
Here's a bit of advice: be a startup junkie and not just a YC applicant.
Startup junkies sill always follow startups: participating, sharing ideas, forming teams and making things happen. Being a startup junkie isn't something that is limited to any one funding cycle or organization. If you're a real junkie, YC is just a place to hang out while you're working on your own plans, which may have nothing to do with YC in the end. YC is just a tool which may or may not be available to you. If nothing else, you can monitor the board and listen while all kinds of cool stuff happens -- there's gold in being part of those conversations.
Or as the old saying goes, "I've been kicked out of better places than this one"
Startup junkies sill always follow startups: participating, sharing ideas, forming teams and making things happen. Being a startup junkie isn't something that is limited to any one funding cycle or organization. If you're a real junkie, YC is just a place to hang out while you're working on your own plans, which may have nothing to do with YC in the end. YC is just a tool which may or may not be available to you. If nothing else, you can monitor the board and listen while all kinds of cool stuff happens -- there's gold in being part of those conversations.
Or as the old saying goes, "I've been kicked out of better places than this one"
...and that too!
Well here's to my fourth attempt.
997 more and you'd be as persistent as Walt Disney.
I bet you have an interesting story, alaskamiller. I imagine others here would like to hear it. Regardless of outcome this time, you should tell it here.
I admire your tenacity. Good luck.
I bet you have an interesting story, alaskamiller. I imagine others here would like to hear it. Regardless of outcome this time, you should tell it here.
I admire your tenacity. Good luck.
[deleted]
This is great advice. Going through the application is itself a great exercise in developing our products and pitches. There are so many paths to success, we just have to keep taking them as they come, whether they be in the form of organizations like Y-Combinator or serendipity... it's almost romantic, don't ya think?
When I was rejected in November 2006, I sent a sarcastic (but not rude) email complaining about not being given a reason. However, I doubt anyone was offended. Anyway, I won't be doing that again.
I felt a little disappointed also, but Paul's point above makes sense:
The reason is that there generally are no details to give. Usually when we don't invite a group for interviews, it's not because there was some glaring flaw in the application, but simply because nothing in it jumped out at us.
The reason is that there generally are no details to give. Usually when we don't invite a group for interviews, it's not because there was some glaring flaw in the application, but simply because nothing in it jumped out at us.
I would expect that in a more perfect world PG (or an equivalent) would also say "We also like to give feedback and point out the things that would have made us more interested had it been included."
The common refrain from VCs, book publishers -- anyone who gets large volumes of submissions and can only select a tiny minority is:
* even attempting to respond (however briefly) to the deluge of requests would overwhelm us to the point that we could no longer focus on running the core business
* even attempting to respond (however briefly) to the deluge of requests would overwhelm us to the point that we could no longer focus on running the core business
But, if all publishers gave feedback then the 'poor' authors would each save themselves from submitting to multiple publishers, and the 'poor' publishers deluged with submissions would instead have more refined manuscripts to evaluate and in lesser numbers. Thus, a little feedback can go a long way. This is because ideally manuscripts would improve only after a few submissions due to the feedback given and then they would either be accepted for publishing, referred to a more appropriate publisher, or shelved due to uninterested publishers.
Except for the fact that a large number of said 'poor' authors won't react that way. They'll argue, fight, and so on.
How about: "There was no glaring flaw in your application, but nothing in it jumped out at us. Next time, do something that will impress us more."
For the record, I did apply last round and was not invited. I did not apply for this funding cycle.
1). Don't take it personally.
YC was kind enough to send a very nice email explaining that their decision wasn't personal. The email explained how their process is fraught with error. They were even nice enough to say there was a good chance they passed over promising groups of hackers. It's not personal and sometimes an application doesn't do justice to your abilities.
2). YC is not for everyone
Sure, YC would make the whole startup process a lot easier and a lot more exciting, but you can still be very successful without YC. There are lots of successful companies out there that probably haven't even heard of YC. The honest truth is: being successful is completely in your control.
3). Don't write scathing blog posts
After the decisions were made, a few people wrote scathing blog posts, designed to rip YC a new one. It doesn't work, it won't make you feel better and it just makes you look like an emotional train wreck. Don't air your dirty laundry. If you feel wronged or emotionally charged, refer to #1, then #2, then #4.
4). Shorten the cycle
Eventually, the rejection will wear off and you'll get back to work. Some people might obsess for a few days, others a few weeks. Eventually though, you will get back to work on your ideas. If that's true, then why not shorten the cycle? Give yourself an hour to feel like crap (if that helps) then get back to work.
I know many of you will see this advice as obvious, but when the email notifications go out it won't be. That's why I'm posting it now.