Don't base your business on getting in. If it's a 'nice extra', I think that you're probably more likely to get in, and also will be less concerned if you don't.
I agree with this advice. Like all investors we prefer startups that would do better with us to those who'd be hosed without us. Though we have funded a fair number of the latter as well, and some of them turned out to be very successful.
Yes. You have to be a world-eating monster to build something viable and you can't be depending on help just because your brain connects YC with "success".
If we are more articulate about it, we will find some reason that its a 'nice extra'. YC gives you:
- No distractions of trying to make a living for 3 months
- Ridiculous amounts of connections for funding
- An environment full of smart, successful people who are professionals at giving feedback and being critical
Now we know why YC helps so much, at the absolute minimum, and we can reproduce it without YC if we don't get in. Thats the game.
My advice, as someone applying, is to spend a lot of time reading and filling out the application. Iterate on it a lot. Print it out and hand it out to your families, or better, your professors. "Do you know what we are going to make from this?".
Assure that any demo links you have are direct and catered to YC looking at them. "Hi YC, this is our demo! Its as simple as possible but if it crashes or something here is a mockup : http://dating-site-for-knife-lovers.co.us/mockup.png.
Make sure your answer to "Describe some time you hacked a non-computer system..." is good. Think about that a lot on your off time (I think its the hardest and intriguing question I've ever been asked, and I think about it all of the time).
DO NOT BE A USED CAR SALESMEN on the application. Be a scientist.
It's surprising how often people answer the question about having hacked some non-computer system by saying that they never have. This just can't be true. Our 2 year old already has 1001 tricks for getting what he wants.
It's probably enough to have independently invented the techniques -- it's not like pg is going to stand up at the interview and yell that there was unpublished prior art in a Swahili book from 1902 explaining the same technique you came up with on your own.
- Are they good people? This is harder to be
specific/definite about and probably applies more to
the interview stage but a common trait amongst YC
founders is that they're always described as good
people
How should one go about being good people? I ask not because I have no clue, but because I'm curious about what others have to say. (Other than being less abrasive when someone on the Internet is wrong.)
I think what Harj means is not so much that you should become good as that if you are a good person, you shouldn't feel like you need to hide it because e.g. you think it would seem unprofessional.
Sorry, but I can't figure out how to connect up the referents so that your comment makes sense to me.
I have no idea why someone would want to hide "being a good person" for any interpretation of good subscribed to by people who exist outside of fiction.
As for becoming good: I think most people are basically good, but some have acquired pathological behaviors. And of course, it's not the business of someone hiring, a startup, or an incubator to do anything about that, except to exclude it. I think a lot of hackers are angry or at least have a chip on their shoulders because their lives and/or their livelihood lacks efficacy.
Someone might think "I'd be fine with losing a little revenue per user if it means users are happier with our product", but feel pressure to instead tell investors "We're not going to do that because it would mean less revenue per user".
Some people think it looks weak/naive/unprofessional to seem "good" in this way.
I'm not sure that's what YC is talking about though.
From my experience, person's behaviour in difficult situations tells, whether he is "good" or "bad". "Bad people" tend to become negative and destructive, "good people" try to stay positive and creative.
"Bad people" tend to become negative and destructive
I think this is the root of some very important lines of thought.
There are well known reasons why people tend towards negative and destructive behaviors. There are well known ways to encourage positive and creative behaviors. I think these both have to do with the feelings of safety and efficacy. It's one thing to apply such thinking when observing governments overseas. It's another thing to start thinking about that in an entirely personal context.
I assume this is difficult to demonstrate in the written application, except maybe in the negative by displaying questionable ethics in your answers.[1] The video probably isn't great for this either as it's more likely to convey charisma than quality of character.
Not being a dick on HN probably helps. Other than that I suspect it's mostly if they a good feeling about you as people at the interview.
[1] e.g. admitting to outright scamming people in the "non-computer-hack" answer.
Charisma is useful. Ethics are also useful in the same way that the rule of law is. Ethics are also beautiful in the way art is.
It's arguably easier and more profitable to do business with ethical people. I met one cocky dot-com bubble ex-startup CEO who thought that creating things of value is piffle and it's all about being cool and getting the payout so one can do nothing but lounge on the beach drinking mai tais in the company of prostitutes. (Sadly, this is not a stereotyped exaggeration, it's exactly what happened and what was said right up to the mai tais, and only the remainder is watered down a bit.)
I think there are 100's of ways one can reveal one's ethics to intelligent observers, especially in person, especially over an extended period of time. (Disturbingly, commenting on social news can be just as revealing.)
Something that occurred to me in the shower:
A useful but disturbing exercise is to start listing your heroes. After you're done with that, start being brutally honest with yourself about how you're not like them. (Then pick out the ways in which this could be turned around as achievable positive goals.)
Of all things, it was listening to Timothy Sykes on Mixergy a few weeks ago that's the soil from which this thought sprouted, in particular the part where he talks about meeting his fans and being disillusioned by that. His fans were mostly nothing like him. They were all just people who wanted pretend to be like him. I'm going to start thinking about this in relation to my professional life and with respect to music.
(I don't think Mr. Sykes would like me, nor I him, nor do I think I'd care for his writing, but I find I respect him as a perceptive human being.)
For what it's worth, I agree with you completely.[1] What I was trying to say is that it's probably difficult to convey these things in an application form, barring any obvious red flags. I assume the YC gang are pretty good at spotting such negative traits in person though.
[1] I tend to be principled to a fault, talking potential customers out of projects they don't actually need and turning down any deals that smell bad. Apart from the fact that I couldn't sleep at night if I didn't, I also think it's a rational strategy.
Is being "good" something that helps you succeed? I hope so. I've been a little disappointed with just how ruthless people at the top tend to be (though I've met plenty of exceptions, PG and JL among them). For every Wozniak who made it to the top, there are 10 Steve Jobs'.
Would love to here more about this-- there are obviously a lot of definitions for "good". Maybe this would make a good essay! :-)
I think it's a case of you're either the type or you aren't. Perhaps they stand for something, and aren't susceptible to the whims of external influence?
My co-founder and I are approaching 30, married and my co-founder has 2 kids. We were in the W2010 YC group. Neither of us had anyone to "sponsor" our living expenses. Yes, we were at a disadvantage compared to younger founders when it came to cost of living, but now that StartFund is investing $150k into every YC company, that disadvantage is erased.
By the way, we were not the oldest founders in our round.
Furthermore, in my opinion, we also had a huge advantage over some of the younger guys -- applicable experience. Most of the younger guys had to stay inside a realm that was familiar to geeks (social media, technology, etc.) whereas we're able to attack a market that most young folks can't touch (old media, newspapers, magazines, radio stations, etc).
At times it has been hard on our marriages, but at the end of the day our spouses both see that we're living our dream and they're happy for us (plus, it probably doesn't hurt that we have a chance of being wealthy some day).
Hey, I'm married with a kid and applying. Do you have any advice for making that work well? Did you bring your families with you to the Bay or did they stay home?
First and foremost -- focus building your company and put together a great application! Have "the talk" about what you'll do if you are funded after you get an interview.
That being said, Lloyd's family stayed home and Rachel came with me. In retrospect (and with more money) we might have done things differently.
One thing to keep in mind is that I prefer to work at home when I can and Lloyd likes to maintain a strict separation between work and family, so those things contributed to our decisions.
There aren't many times in life when you'll work harder than when you're in YC, so your preferred working style should be part of what informs your decision to bring or be away from your family.
"First and foremost -- focus building your company and put together a great application!"
Always!
"There aren't many times in life when you'll work harder than when you're in YC, so your preferred working style should be part of what informs your decision to bring or be away from your family."
I would look at the intensive application and rules as it would explain what's expected of you. But you should have something of what's expected of them too.
I can't tell if you're serious as yours is a throw away account. Now, I'm not applying to YC (wrong continent and other issues) But I disagree with your general sentiment.
Clearly you can't put all your eggs in one basket and must always have a plan B thru Z+, however what makes real men or women for that matter is the ability to know their limits and the ability to seek or delegate help to fortify and complement said limits. There is no room for pride in real humans.
Also, don't underestimate the effects of (a) the feedback effects of each successful generation (b) the motivational aspects of being surrounded by like minded, determined, hard working people chasing their dreams (c) the networking and prestige bonuses. The $18k is just gravy.
Real men and women are pragmatic, they put aside pride and do whatever it takes - within reason of course - to ensure success.
