I don't mean to flamebait or troll or anything, but lots of the "misconceptions" seem grounded in data, based on the very data that you're putting forward:
Misconception: I need to raise a seed round before I apply to YC.
S16: False. 14.2% of accepted companies weren’t even incorporated when they applied.
So it's mostly true.
The list goes on and on. Not that it removes the merit of YC or anything, but, hey, mind neutering the PR/marketing BS a bit to give the actual picture without trying to paint lipstick all over the pig? ;-)
The way that FAQ or whatever it is reads atm is: "Our deal flow is not as big as we'd like, so please send more applications in so we can show we've tons of demand to those we raised funds from and ensure they'll invest again because we get to be picky since we're hugely popular!" Which is PR/marketing at the end of the day, but just don't be misleading to would-be founders.
I don't have an opinion on YC one way or the other, but...do you have an axe to grind? There are only three numbers in that list that don't overwhelmingly support the claims made. You call that a list that "goes on and on", "PR/marketing BS", and "lipstick all over the pig"?
No, I'm merely a marketer myself, with some experience behind their side of the table, so I felt like calling out "oh really?!?" types of statements when I see them for the gullible entrepreneur types (met many) who might thoughtlessly drink the cool-aid.
Also, there were more than three. A few more that stood out, and I'm sure we could argue on a few more:
Misconception: I’ve raised too much money for YC.
Is a sampling anomaly for all we know.
Misconception: I’m too far along for YC.
Likewise.
Misconception: Solo founders aren’t accepted.
Seriously? "8.5% had a solo founder."
Misconception: I need to know someone at YC or have an alumni recommendation.
Likewise. "54.7% did not have a recommendation." Of those that did/didn't, how many got accepted?
So the reason we did this is not because of deal flow. Over 7500 companies apply to YC every batch and only 100-150 get in. The reason why we did this is cause the number one reason why companies don't apply to YC is because they don't think they can get in and the number one myth about getting into YC is that you need an alum to recommend you. We thought that opening up the recommendation system would allow any founder to ask anyone who believes in their company to recommend them (even if they don't know a YC alum). Also, it allows anyone working with a good founder to give them some additional confidence when applying to YC.
"the number one reason why companies don't apply to YC is because they don't think they can get in" - and 98% of them are correct to think that in each batch. It's certainly in YC's interest to encourage as many applications as possible, as YC's option to say 'yes' or 'no' is always worth >= 0, but I suspect that for many startups, it's not worth the distraction. So YC can have lots of applicants, a very small admit %, and still be better off with even more applicants.
"54.7% did not have a recommendation." (regarding accepted companies) - founders who are applying are not interested in the "percentage of accepted founders who had a recommendation", it's "what is my chance of acceptance with a recommendation?" vs "what is my chance of acceptance without a recommendation?" For example, if say, 50% of 150 'recommended' founders are accepted, while 1% of 7350 'unrecommended' founders were accepted, you would get similar numbers to those published.
Ok, but if that's what you're trying to solve, how about the full anonymized dataset available for everyone to crunch instead of letting marketing produce a few cherry-picked stats?
Might be just me, but I've met my own fair share of deluded founders and very bright ones. It would be a public service for everyone out there if they could see a VC's deal flow exposed as it is, and be able to crunch a few numbers before they apply.
Might you get less deal flow if you did that? Maybe. Might the deal flow be more interesting? Might also be...
Either way, though, you'd be a very interesting source of data for anyone trying to figure out "Do I tick most of the boxes to get funding or am I just wasting my time?" Raising funds takes lots of enery. Even Paul Graham says so here:
Comments
I don't mean to flamebait or troll or anything, but lots of the "misconceptions" seem grounded in data, based on the very data that you're putting forward:
https://blog.ycombinator.com/common-misconceptions-about-app...
So it's mostly true.
So it's mostly true.
The list goes on and on. Not that it removes the merit of YC or anything, but, hey, mind neutering the PR/marketing BS a bit to give the actual picture without trying to paint lipstick all over the pig? ;-)
The way that FAQ or whatever it is reads atm is: "Our deal flow is not as big as we'd like, so please send more applications in so we can show we've tons of demand to those we raised funds from and ensure they'll invest again because we get to be picky since we're hugely popular!" Which is PR/marketing at the end of the day, but just don't be misleading to would-be founders.
I don't have an opinion on YC one way or the other, but...do you have an axe to grind? There are only three numbers in that list that don't overwhelmingly support the claims made. You call that a list that "goes on and on", "PR/marketing BS", and "lipstick all over the pig"?
No, I'm merely a marketer myself, with some experience behind their side of the table, so I felt like calling out "oh really?!?" types of statements when I see them for the gullible entrepreneur types (met many) who might thoughtlessly drink the cool-aid.
Also, there were more than three. A few more that stood out, and I'm sure we could argue on a few more:
Is a sampling anomaly for all we know.
Likewise.
Seriously? "8.5% had a solo founder."
Likewise. "54.7% did not have a recommendation." Of those that did/didn't, how many got accepted?
Right, 100% who got in applied, see? Meaningless.
So the reason we did this is not because of deal flow. Over 7500 companies apply to YC every batch and only 100-150 get in. The reason why we did this is cause the number one reason why companies don't apply to YC is because they don't think they can get in and the number one myth about getting into YC is that you need an alum to recommend you. We thought that opening up the recommendation system would allow any founder to ask anyone who believes in their company to recommend them (even if they don't know a YC alum). Also, it allows anyone working with a good founder to give them some additional confidence when applying to YC.
"the number one reason why companies don't apply to YC is because they don't think they can get in" - and 98% of them are correct to think that in each batch. It's certainly in YC's interest to encourage as many applications as possible, as YC's option to say 'yes' or 'no' is always worth >= 0, but I suspect that for many startups, it's not worth the distraction. So YC can have lots of applicants, a very small admit %, and still be better off with even more applicants.
"54.7% did not have a recommendation." (regarding accepted companies) - founders who are applying are not interested in the "percentage of accepted founders who had a recommendation", it's "what is my chance of acceptance with a recommendation?" vs "what is my chance of acceptance without a recommendation?" For example, if say, 50% of 150 'recommended' founders are accepted, while 1% of 7350 'unrecommended' founders were accepted, you would get similar numbers to those published.
Ok, but if that's what you're trying to solve, how about the full anonymized dataset available for everyone to crunch instead of letting marketing produce a few cherry-picked stats?
Might be just me, but I've met my own fair share of deluded founders and very bright ones. It would be a public service for everyone out there if they could see a VC's deal flow exposed as it is, and be able to crunch a few numbers before they apply.
Might you get less deal flow if you did that? Maybe. Might the deal flow be more interesting? Might also be...
Either way, though, you'd be a very interesting source of data for anyone trying to figure out "Do I tick most of the boxes to get funding or am I just wasting my time?" Raising funds takes lots of enery. Even Paul Graham says so here:
http://paulgraham.com/fr.html
29 percent is a lot and definitely proves you don't need to be from the US. many would argue it should be lower.
Or much higher. There are tons of great startups in Europe, and I'm sure there are many great ones in e.g. India or China too.
Think of the list as alternative facts.