I've applied to YC several times (more than 4, over the course of 7+ years). I never got accepted. In fact, I've never encountered a human during the entire application process. Everything was very automated: submit an application, then rejection with zero feedback.
In my opinion, early startups are very fragile in nature. The team, product, and goals have to be aligned in order to make progress and move forward. Having rejected from YC without any feedback is equivalent to "not worth our time"
If I could do all my startups again, I'd definitely avoid applying to YC. In most cases, rejection is so hurtful enough, that even strong teams fall apart. Sometimes, even with proper validation from the market, having that rejection is a big burden on team morale.
I think instead of focusing on RFS, YC should re-evaluate their business model. Application process shouldn't be based on acceptance/rejection, but rather a process. Startups should be encouraged to apply, and continue to update their progress with YC.
YC can monitor these startups, and offer guidance if deemed necessary. It creates a record of their progress, and how they are doing over time. Evaluations should not focus on a given point in time, but rather as a lifecycle of the team, product and goals.
If I could show you what I had to go through, to get to that stage, and is seeking your help, would you lend me a hand?
I think this comment "In most cases, rejection is so hurtful enough, that even strong teams fall apart." may hint at the success of the vetting process. If your team can't withstand not getting into YC, I'd suggest it may not be able to stand the rigors of the start-up process.
I'm in a similar boat as you having applied a few times, and never been accepted, but that never remotely affected progress on the projects.
On the one hand we're to believe that applying and being rejected resulting in a team falling apart is proof the system works, on the other, applying and being rejected caused you to keep going.
Doesn't that second case prove that the evaluation doesn't work?
Personally I feel that if you're going to do a startup not getting accepted into an accelerator is the same as not winning the lottery so assume you won't get in and try anyway if you can do so without spending a lot of time (which is a finite resource).
On the other hand I can see how people from various countries with an environment less geared towards start-ups would benefit from being in YC to the point that if they can't get in the whole thing is lost for them.
I wouldn't take that as proof that the vetting process works.
That's not what I'm saying "not sure how you got there", what I'm saying is that YC wants to fund strong teams that are going to see things through. If a small bump in the road like not getting into YC is such a proof to the team that the idea didn't work, that is 'A' proof that the team was not strong enough. It obviously isn't everything.
Not getting in and continuing is not proof that you are a strong team, all it says is that you're focused on the business/project not everything is weighted on how one group views what you're doing.
Does that make more sense?
I strongly disagree that not getting accepted to an accelerator is the same as not winning. I can't tell you how strongly I feel that way, and I've been through an accelerator before (not YC).
It's like saying not getting investment is the same as not winning, and that is also not true. What does it even mean. Not getting into an accelerator or getting funding isn't boolean. It's a 'yet'. You met with an investor and they didn't invest. You don't stop and give up.
My very first customer call I had an amazing target tell me they "didn't want to use my product and wanted to ensure that nobody did!". That sounds like failure to me.
The next 10 customers I spoke to couldn't wait to use the product. We've had 30k+ users and millions of visits. This was only one persons opinion, and you need to look at getting accepted by accelerators and investors in the same light.
You have to find your own confidence. Listen to their feedback if you can get it, but I'd hope you take their acceptence as a weak signal.
Yes. I agree with you, but I think team dynamics are more complicated than that.
It's very difficult to find decent and/or experienced co-founder(s). Given you are lucky enough to find them, and expect them to work for free. Given the rigors of the start-up process, when should they expect to give up and move to something new?
I've worked on a project for 3 years without pay. I filed bankruptcy. My partner had a divorce. We had traction and revenue, but not enough to support ourselves. We ended up closing down.
Getting into YC is tough. It also gives you an indication that something is going right. YC also gives you enough padding to make sure you are not distracted from harsh realities of life.
That all sounds aweful tpae, and I'm sorry to hear you're having such a rough go of it.
Everybody always says start-ups are hard, and there is no guarantee of success. In fact, most people say the there is almost a guarantee of failure. What keeps us going is the unfortunate promise of something better.
> Application process shouldn't be based on acceptance/rejection, but rather a process. Startups should be encouraged to apply, and continue to update their progress with YC.
I've been rejected 4 times too. It doesn't feel good, but you need to be able to take these things in your stride and keep going. Startups are a grind.
> In fact, I've never encountered a human during the entire application process. Everything was very automated: submit an application, then rejection with zero feedback.
I can guarantee you that multiple people look at every single application. This is actually part of the reason it's hard to give feedback to everyone who applies (let alone the sheer volume) - the reasons for rejection can vary between reviewers. After all the scores are tallied, there's no single individual who can speak to why a given application didn't make the cut.
Sounds as if you are proposing that they put a lot more time and work into nurturing the top and middle of their funnel. Do you believe that this incremental (but not small) investment of their limited resources would yield them better outcomes for themselves?
In my opinion, early startups are very fragile in nature. The team, product, and goals have to be aligned in order to make progress and move forward. Having rejected from YC without any feedback is equivalent to "not worth our time"
If I could do all my startups again, I'd definitely avoid applying to YC. In most cases, rejection is so hurtful enough, that even strong teams fall apart. Sometimes, even with proper validation from the market, having that rejection is a big burden on team morale.
I think instead of focusing on RFS, YC should re-evaluate their business model. Application process shouldn't be based on acceptance/rejection, but rather a process. Startups should be encouraged to apply, and continue to update their progress with YC.
YC can monitor these startups, and offer guidance if deemed necessary. It creates a record of their progress, and how they are doing over time. Evaluations should not focus on a given point in time, but rather as a lifecycle of the team, product and goals.
If I could show you what I had to go through, to get to that stage, and is seeking your help, would you lend me a hand?