So you didn't get into Y Combinator, now what?(imars.posthaven.com)
imars.posthaven.com
So you didn't get into Y Combinator, now what?
http://imars.posthaven.com/so-you-didnt-get-into-yc-now-what
10 comments
Companies will be successful with or without YC if they are determined to succeed. YC alone won't make any company successful, only the founders and their employees can do that.
I share this same view with founders of current YC startups http://imars.posthaven.com/so-you-got-into-yc-now-what
I share this same view with founders of current YC startups http://imars.posthaven.com/so-you-got-into-yc-now-what
Are there any meta-analyses of YC "I didn't get into YC" / "I got into YC" posts that can give a more objective conclusion to this kind of thing? We almost always see these posts from individual founders who did [not] make it into YC and what they think the reasons are. It's all anecdotal.
I realize the plural of anecdote is not data, but it would be nice to see some real scholarly analysis of what happens to YC applicants, as opposed to a series of anecdotal and speculative blog posts. Denis is both a founder and a YC advisor, so maybe his anecdotes are a little higher quality than others, but even so, they're still anecdotes.
Which brings me to my other point: every couple of months we get flooded with "I didn't get into YC" and they all basically say the same thing (or at least variations on the same thing). It seems to me that anyone who is applying to YC would already read up as much as they can about YC applicants, which includes reading every "I didn't get into YC" post they can find. After reading 5 or 10 of them, they'll quickly realize there are the same 5 lessons from each one. Why read any more? (Which translates to: why post another "I didn't get into YC" post?)
Anyway, just kinda thinking out loud here. I would love to see a more comprehensive, multi-applicant analysis instead of yet-another-anecdotal-blog-post.
[Edit: Next up on a Jemaclus post, how many times can I use the word "anecdote" in one comment? Stay tuned...]
I realize the plural of anecdote is not data, but it would be nice to see some real scholarly analysis of what happens to YC applicants, as opposed to a series of anecdotal and speculative blog posts. Denis is both a founder and a YC advisor, so maybe his anecdotes are a little higher quality than others, but even so, they're still anecdotes.
Which brings me to my other point: every couple of months we get flooded with "I didn't get into YC" and they all basically say the same thing (or at least variations on the same thing). It seems to me that anyone who is applying to YC would already read up as much as they can about YC applicants, which includes reading every "I didn't get into YC" post they can find. After reading 5 or 10 of them, they'll quickly realize there are the same 5 lessons from each one. Why read any more? (Which translates to: why post another "I didn't get into YC" post?)
Anyway, just kinda thinking out loud here. I would love to see a more comprehensive, multi-applicant analysis instead of yet-another-anecdotal-blog-post.
[Edit: Next up on a Jemaclus post, how many times can I use the word "anecdote" in one comment? Stay tuned...]
Agreed, although, the aim here is not to focus on the 'why' part? It's to focus on the 'where to go from here' part. The 'why' will always be anecdotal as it's one perspective vs another. The key to this post is really honing in on the fact that the best entrepreneurs can take setbacks yet still move on to succeed in their endeavors to build amazing companies with our without YC. Which 'anecdotally or otherwise' makes for the best YC applicants.
I agree but you don't really need an in depth reason why because at the end of the day you gotta make it happen or don't.
I think it's just annoying to see posts about the same topic someone already mentioned several times again.
It's like yup I've heard that before and then my response is, "Okay so what are you doing about it?"
I think it's just annoying to see posts about the same topic someone already mentioned several times again.
It's like yup I've heard that before and then my response is, "Okay so what are you doing about it?"
My cofounder and I were rejected by YC last year. YC provided great feedback, and we took it into consideration, but decided we still thought the idea was solid. We kept looking for funding and eventually found an accelerator that specialized in education startups (co.lab), and it turned out to be better for us in every way -- better terms, better ongoing support, so on and so forth. So, it's actually good that we were rejected.
I would definitely apply to YC again, though. Even if you're rejected it's still 10 minutes of concentrated feedback from smart, experienced people, which is always worth something.
I would definitely apply to YC again, though. Even if you're rejected it's still 10 minutes of concentrated feedback from smart, experienced people, which is always worth something.
I work on the software team at MassChallenge, a nonprofit and startup accelerator in Boston. We work hard to make the process of applying as valuable for startups who don't make it into the 128 that actually come into our space for the summer. Multiple companies have gotten rejected, used the feedback our judges give them, and gotten in the 2nd time around, won money in the end.
The criteria we look for are slightly different since we don't take any of the company's equity and thus look at broader impact than just profitability but everything said here is true for us as well.
The criteria we look for are slightly different since we don't take any of the company's equity and thus look at broader impact than just profitability but everything said here is true for us as well.
I applied for Y Combinator 5 times since 2008.
Now I serve coffee.
Just kidding, I'm pretty successful.
Now I serve coffee.
Just kidding, I'm pretty successful.
Drew was rejected on his first application?
Anyways this is obvious because if you don't you fail and go back to employee land more than likely.
Anyways this is obvious because if you don't you fail and go back to employee land more than likely.
Entrepreneurs make companies, not accelerators.
"Determination is by far the strongest attribute of successful entrepreneurs, so stay focused, and keep going."
That's it.
That's it.
It's an incredibly useful data point to YC if the applicants get rejected and then quit building. If that happens, the entrepreneurs are basically confirming YC's decision not to invest. Ain't no way to succeed without persistence.
> So you didn't get into Y Combinator, now what?
Hmmm...maybe build your company anyway and keep more equity for yourself.
ycombinator != only route to startup success, obviously.
Hmmm...maybe build your company anyway and keep more equity for yourself.
ycombinator != only route to startup success, obviously.
But stories relating to YC companies get a lot more upvotes than stories relating to other companies based on both systemic and natural patterns. This leads to a casual observer believing that YC companies are doing incredibly well and all other companies are not, because you aren't hearing about their success as much. This could not be further from the truth.
The majority of successful startups didn't go to YC just based on sheer volume. I have no doubt YC is a very valuable thing, but I've both seen and participated in groups where a bunch of people who had no idea what they were doing figured it out without YC's help. What current and potential customers think of your company is a heck of a lot more important than what a bunch of YC advisors think of your company.