As someone who knows a significant number of YC folks, I have to say the most inspiring thing about the entire organization is how normal everyone is.
There's this expectation that there's "something different" that separates successful startup founders from "common folk". And it just doesn't exist. I think the barrier of intimidation is one of the biggest things most people aren't fortunate enough to experience.
Like I said, I know more than a few YC folks, I've interviewed (and was rejected) once from YC, and every person I've met struck me as utterly normal in most ways. They merely possessed a bit more experience and in general know a tad more than the average person.
There's no reason you can't do a startup right this instant. Do not let YC's rejection/acceptance dictate your path.
I don't think everyone is Superman but I have the impression that while they all seem normal, the applicants must be very competitive. By that, I mean many must show something impressive that separates them from the others.
This doesn't mean they can shoot lasers from their eyes but they must show some entrepreneurial spirit or have accomplished something great/interesting/cool beforehand.
As someone who didn't get into YC, I do agree with your final statement. No reason you can't do a startup.
And, after reading this, I'm reminded I should re-apply. :)
I don't know, for me it is a weird story of someone desperately seeking acceptance of his fetish named Paul Graham (in the text he mentions PG sixteen(!) times by name) and now his suffering is come to an end.
Sincere congratulations, though, Wilhelm, I hope now you can start living the life again.
It's pretty natural to mention the people you work with a lot, and YC startups work with PG a lot. I'd mention my coworkers a bunch too in my comments, except that they're not public figures like PG is, and I want to protect their privacy.
As a single founder who just submitted their application this article makes me happy. If this kind of attitude and traction is what they're looking for then I think I do have a pretty good shot.
Either way, I'm looking forward to seeing what comes out of it.
Want to add a point. I think the common trait you mentioned in the post that you find in all our current batch mates is passion. I can just sense how everyone is so passionate in their own ways.
People who are passionate are more likely to stick it out to the end. It is something I think that's pretty hard to fake.
Exactly, just do it again and again, over and over... eventually things will fit together and you will get it right. The spirit of not giving up and to keep learning from mistakes is the only that counts in the end.
I have been rejected twice previously (1st poorly prepared, 2nd late) as a single founder.
Given PG's selection is based on startup founder's likelihood of success. YC's harsh selection process have really shaped my vision of my product to attack the problem domain from a different angle. I think they will train better founders.
Now, I am applying YC this session (S11),
- Finally i find a cofounder that i have know for 2 years that have perfect match in value and skill sets.
- I spend much more time preparing the application
- Also exponential more time working on the real business assets (design, code, project plan)
I should Thank them for the harshness, it makes you becomes a stronger, better fighter !
I think my major take home from the process is that I don't need YC to succeed. I still have an application in, and will certainly appreciate the opportunity should we be accepted, but being accepted is far from make or break.
+1 for finally getting in. From what you write, it seems to me that you got into YC at a point when knew the game quite well. The learning was in getting in.
So what's your take away from all of it? Is it the YC network and the resourcefulness of YC founders, or is there more to it?
PS: I strongly believe in the adage, "if you want to be smart, surround yourself with smart people". From that POV, I understand that being connected to YC founders itself gives you tools that would otherwise be inaccessible to you. Still I wanna hear that from you, since you're in a better position to ascertain that.
Wanted to thank you for this post; some of your quotes about co-founders describe the trials and tribulations we've already been through in the 6 months we've been working full time on our startup. Great read!
If it is a convertible bond, that isn't really as silly a question as the article makes it out to be, and is very relevant given Yuri Milner's convertible bond offer - in which case I believe the answer is "1 year, unless Yuri decides to exercise the option to convert".
Everything I could tell you about your application, I've written in the post. :)
The only other than I'd add is to write less. Get to the point. Clear language is indicative of clear thinking (something I'm still learning myself).
It's easy to slide into formal writing because that's what we're all use to in college, but it'll kill you here. Use short easy words. Use simple sentences. Cut out words that don't get to the point. You don't have to explain everything. Just explain the crux and the core.
I know, easier said than done. I'm a bit sheepish that my post was so long, but I cut as much as I could in the time that I had.
I don't think many people actually think that. We've said publicly many times that we'd be pleasantly surprised if the success rate was as high as 50%.
You may be pleased by a 50% success rate, but how many of the 50% who don't succeed will be pleased?
(Not just being facetious -- I've heard stories about YCers whose companies failed being hired by other YC companies or otherwise finding good positions as a result of their YC experience, but a few anecdotes is no substitute for data.)
I fall in the 50% who did not succeed. I stepped down from Contagion Health (imoveyou.com, S2010) at the end of our batch, but my co-founder Jen is still at it and looking for a new co-founder.
Reasons for failure aside, I have no regrets at all. It was a completely amazing experience with amazing people and amazing opportunities. I'm still very close with many companies from my batch and actively helping a couple of those.
I can't say I would have done anything differently since I wouldn't want to miss out on any part of what happened.
"Not succeeding" is not so bad. Life goes on while I work on my next project, this time focusing on building revenue instead of raising money—a refreshing change. I don't know if my current project is a great fit for YC yet, but I can definitely see myself applying for YC again someday.
Most of them. Those who don't succeed have a big pile of successful startups who know them well and will hire them (if they stil have the startup bug). They've gotten a guided tour of the valley-style startup path-- next time will be easier.
It'd be an interesting experiment to track down all of the YC companies that have fully failed to date and ask them, "knowing what you know now, do you wish you'd chosen a different path?" My guess is that 90%+ would do YC again in a heartbeat (though perhaps with a different co-founder or different market/idea).
I've heard stories about YCers whose companies failed being hired by other YC companies
I've heard successful YC companies referred to as being like piranhas (or something like that). Any time another YC company shows signs of failing, the others tend to wonder about hiring opportunities.
I'm curious: how did you extrapolate from Wil's points on how to be a successful YC applicant that he also thought all YC companies are going to be successful?
These are qualities for successful founders, not successful companies. There are a myriad of reasons why a startup might fail. Having founders with the traits outlined in this essay helps prevent the founders from being one of those reasons. That's why YC looks for these traits.
Since YC screens applicants, they can select the ones they feel are best suited for success. Based on past experience, those with the traits in this essay are the most successful. Minimizing the founders as the source of failure means YC might have more successes, on average.
As pg said, even YC would be surprised if their "success" rate is more than 50%. Being accepted into YC doesn't guarantee success... Creating a successful company is hard!
I don't really think that the post implies that belief at all. This line in particular demonstrates the number of people already IN YC who are still rather unsure about things:
"one of us remarked that looking at everyone else in the batch, they're still in disbelief that they got in at all, and a bunch of us starred the comment in agreement, even those batch mates that I think are amazing"
I think that for the average startup your chance of success would improve in a statistically significant way but this would be really hard to quantify as if you get into YC you were probably already more likely to succeed on your own anyway.
It also depends a lot on how success is defined, in the return on investment for investors or in how it effects/improves the founders/employees lives. Getting a talent acquisition and working on something awesome at Facebook or similar could be a big success for the founders even though there is little there for the investors.
Not at all. Plenty of YC companies fail. The founders go on to do another startup, work at facebook/google/etc, work for another startup, or raise a family.
And also, there are plenty of non-YC companies that succeed. I've not asserted otherwise.
This is advice for you only if you're already convinced of the value of YC. If you aren't yet, there's other blog posts to cover that.
I think that if I got into YC it would be an amazing experience, I would learn an incredible amount, and I would meet and hopefully become friends with a great number of very interesting people.
That's why I want to do it.
But I don't think for a second that YC will make my company a sure bet. Just how I don't think for a second that I can't be successful without YC.
People that do get in do not seem to think this way. As the yc backed founder rmorrison said[1]: If you think you need YC to succeed, then you won't (and shouldn't) be accepted
Great post that hopefully makes some people feel less need to get into YC. A great founder can be helped by YC, but would be successful with or without it. If you think you need to get into YC to succeed, you're not who they are looking for.
is one of the top two Google results, at least as Google customizes its results for me. Any time I see a puzzling abbreviation or acronym or new vocabulary word or foreign word or phrase online, I just Google it.
There's this expectation that there's "something different" that separates successful startup founders from "common folk". And it just doesn't exist. I think the barrier of intimidation is one of the biggest things most people aren't fortunate enough to experience.
Like I said, I know more than a few YC folks, I've interviewed (and was rejected) once from YC, and every person I've met struck me as utterly normal in most ways. They merely possessed a bit more experience and in general know a tad more than the average person.
There's no reason you can't do a startup right this instant. Do not let YC's rejection/acceptance dictate your path.