Who Gets Into Accelerators? Persistent Men With SaaS Apps, Says Study(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Who Gets Into Accelerators? Persistent Men With SaaS Apps, Says Study
http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/20/who-gets-into-accelerators-persistent-men-with-saas-apps-says-study/
4 comments
The money quote: "The figures were almost exactly the same for unsuccessful applicants [as for successful ones]"
A better title: "Who Applies for Accelerators? Men With SaaS Apps, Says Study"
Sorry for confusing this issue, but the quote is talking only about gender and team size.
They didn't mention how many of unsuccessful applicants did SaaS apps. Furthermore, people who were accepted had more applications behind them then rejects.
They didn't mention how many of unsuccessful applicants did SaaS apps. Furthermore, people who were accepted had more applications behind them then rejects.
Thanks for saving me the trouble of reading this.
"Either low numbers of women founders are applying for accelerators, or the gate-keepers for accelerators are somewhat closed-minded — or a combination of both."
14.8% of rejected applicants were female vs. 13.2% accepted... So close-minded!
Pretty sick of journalists flagrantly stretching the truth to make sexisms suggestions.
14.8% of rejected applicants were female vs. 13.2% accepted... So close-minded!
Pretty sick of journalists flagrantly stretching the truth to make sexisms suggestions.
So almost all female founders are accepted, whereas barely 2% of male founders are. Yes, extremely close-minded and sexist.
Edit : Ok, I understood the math incorrectly here.
Edit : Ok, I understood the math incorrectly here.
You're misunderstanding those figures, he meant that they're proportionate.
85.2% Male and 14.8% Female founders are rejected. If anything, I'd say a lot more male founders are rejected vs female. 5.75675675675676x more male founders are rejected compared to female founders. But still there is sexism involved towards the females. Why can't we accept that a lot less women are interested in entrepreneurship and technology than men? I do not intend sexism, but a majority of female entrepreneurs I've come across sell nail polish/stickers and necklaces. Not exactly sure why that kind of business requires going through an accelerator. Now I know I will get downvoted to hell for pointing out the truth, but we can't force women to do something they don't want to do just so that we can have everything 50-50.
> Why can't we accept that a lot less women are interested in entrepreneurship and technology than men?
Because "accepting" it means conceding that it's an unalterable and permanent condition - often times expressed as a biotruth about women being one way and men being another.
Most people feel that isn't the case though. That the disparity is a social problem that we can change and fix.
Because "accepting" it means conceding that it's an unalterable and permanent condition - often times expressed as a biotruth about women being one way and men being another.
Most people feel that isn't the case though. That the disparity is a social problem that we can change and fix.
> Most people feel that isn't the case though. That the disparity is a social problem that we can change and fix.
Recently saw a really interesting well-researched Norwegian documentary that explores this topic and kinda throws that whole view into question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE
Recently saw a really interesting well-researched Norwegian documentary that explores this topic and kinda throws that whole view into question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE
> Why can't we accept that a lot less women are interested in entrepreneurship and technology than men?
For the same reason that 50 years ago nobody should have believed that women were less interested in going to college, becoming a doctor, or becoming a lawyer.
All of those are at parity now, but 50 years ago people were spouting opinions just like yours. They were wrong.
For the same reason that 50 years ago nobody should have believed that women were less interested in going to college, becoming a doctor, or becoming a lawyer.
All of those are at parity now, but 50 years ago people were spouting opinions just like yours. They were wrong.
I think you might be having trouble with the math.
it's not 14% of female founders rejected, its 14% of rejected founders were female (while about 13% of accepted founders were female). There's no male persecution going on here.
it's not 14% of female founders rejected, its 14% of rejected founders were female (while about 13% of accepted founders were female). There's no male persecution going on here.
I meant that from the total 100% of rejected founders, 85.2% were male and 14.8% were female. I'm not saying its male persecution, I'm only saying that what the article is trying to say(that females are being oppressed and discriminated against on the basis of gender) is untrue, and there is more than one way of looking at the data. I can very well say that from the group of rejected founders, almost 6X more male founders were rejected than female founders, so male founders are being discriminated against. I am only trying to say that the journalists are implying what they want to imply from the data, its their perception, which is, in this case, far off from reality. There are a lot more females in education, healthcare, etc., compared to males, I don't see journalists saying that men are being discriminated against in those fields. Its because while a vast majority of women are interested in education and healthcare, a vast majority of men are interested in technology and entrepreneurship. There is no discrimination on the basis of gender.
Accelerators intentionally select for startups that fit within the constraints of the accelerator model. Even assuming the founder(s) are smart, disciplined, and competent, many startups do not meet the basic criteria that will allow them to be successful in the accelerator environment. The people that run these accelerators know this and filter accordingly.
Two big rejection criteria that many people misunderstand:
- Accelerator programs require founders to do more, faster than can be reasonably managed by a single person, hence no sole founders. There is too much work to do without at least two people on the founding team. It is not that you can't successfully build a startup as a sole founder (I am one) but that you are unlikely to successfully execute an accelerator program as one, which is an important distinction.
- Simple Web/SaaS applications fit the program timeline of accelerator models. They are not designed for hardcore technology or infrastructure startups that require an enormous amount of heavy lifting on the engineering side in order to have a Minimum Viable Product. These companies often require closer to a year to get off the ground, which is far longer than most accelerator programs run and often have very different customer sales cycles. The kinds of startups that fit within typical accelerator program scope are a small fraction of all startups you could build.
If you look at the statistics irrelevant to the constraints of an accelerator program, such as gender balance, you see that the statistics for accepted and rejected startups look similar, which is what you would expect if the selection process was working well.
Two big rejection criteria that many people misunderstand:
- Accelerator programs require founders to do more, faster than can be reasonably managed by a single person, hence no sole founders. There is too much work to do without at least two people on the founding team. It is not that you can't successfully build a startup as a sole founder (I am one) but that you are unlikely to successfully execute an accelerator program as one, which is an important distinction.
- Simple Web/SaaS applications fit the program timeline of accelerator models. They are not designed for hardcore technology or infrastructure startups that require an enormous amount of heavy lifting on the engineering side in order to have a Minimum Viable Product. These companies often require closer to a year to get off the ground, which is far longer than most accelerator programs run and often have very different customer sales cycles. The kinds of startups that fit within typical accelerator program scope are a small fraction of all startups you could build.
If you look at the statistics irrelevant to the constraints of an accelerator program, such as gender balance, you see that the statistics for accepted and rejected startups look similar, which is what you would expect if the selection process was working well.
I've applied twice to an accelerator, both times unsuccessfully. However, it was not due to being female, but instead because I'm a sole founder. It's a bit of a conundrum unfortunately, because I wish to prove myself to my peers before seeking co-founders.
As the study only took into account those applications made via the F6S platform, I would not trust the figures. Some founders are unable to use it for a start, as they're insistent on only allowing logins with either Facebook or Linkedin. Not everyone uses or is willing to connect those services, like myself.
As the study only took into account those applications made via the F6S platform, I would not trust the figures. Some founders are unable to use it for a start, as they're insistent on only allowing logins with either Facebook or Linkedin. Not everyone uses or is willing to connect those services, like myself.
> As the study only took into account those applications made via the F6S platform, I would not trust the figures.
When we applied for both Techstars and 9MileLabs we had to go through F6s as well.
> because I wish to prove myself to my peers before seeking co-founders.
Why is that reasoning a gating factor for finding a co-founder?
When we applied for both Techstars and 9MileLabs we had to go through F6s as well.
> because I wish to prove myself to my peers before seeking co-founders.
Why is that reasoning a gating factor for finding a co-founder?
Fortunately, the accelerator that I've applied for provides both, a F6S backed application process, and their own.
The co-founder quandary is due to repeated past experiences of having my work being overly-criticised, so lack faith in my myself. Although, I'm now trying to overcome those hurdles I've set myself.
The co-founder quandary is due to repeated past experiences of having my work being overly-criticised, so lack faith in my myself. Although, I'm now trying to overcome those hurdles I've set myself.
This article is a paraphrase of a study it doesn't link to. It links only to the home page of the organization. Does anybody have the url to the original source?
HN strongly prefers original sources, as long as they're reasonably readable.
HN strongly prefers original sources, as long as they're reasonably readable.