Done with YC: Age Discrimination
138 comments
I've never applied for YC funding, or any kind of seed funding, I don't know much about the world of startups but
>YC evaluators are explicitly biased. There is such a thing as unconscious bias. We know and understand this in the racial domain.
Yes they are, everyone is, it's the way of it.
Yes they know who they want to give their money to. In the end like anyone else, whether it's a job interview or applying for grants, which I have done, or applying for seed funding, who you are compared to the values of the people you are applying to matters.
You can be 110% qualified and not 'fit the culture' and be rejected. It's just the way of life and something everyone really should just accept because it will never change.
You can and will be rejected from things in life because of things you cannot change and sometimes you will have no idea why and you will never get an explanation. Or, if you're lucky, you will get an explanation that essentially amounts to 'I dunno I just don't like the cut of your jibe.' That's life for ya though.
>YC evaluators are explicitly biased. There is such a thing as unconscious bias. We know and understand this in the racial domain.
Yes they are, everyone is, it's the way of it.
Yes they know who they want to give their money to. In the end like anyone else, whether it's a job interview or applying for grants, which I have done, or applying for seed funding, who you are compared to the values of the people you are applying to matters.
You can be 110% qualified and not 'fit the culture' and be rejected. It's just the way of life and something everyone really should just accept because it will never change.
You can and will be rejected from things in life because of things you cannot change and sometimes you will have no idea why and you will never get an explanation. Or, if you're lucky, you will get an explanation that essentially amounts to 'I dunno I just don't like the cut of your jibe.' That's life for ya though.
Based on your description, YC will remain stuck with the same demographics forever and noone that meets those metrics should bother applying. Case closed.
Yeah...I'd say so. They're a bunch of people with lots of money, trying to make more money, that's reality.
All this wishy, washy feelings bullshit the world is focused on doesn't really matter when it comes to making money when it involves people with lots of money. That shit doesn't actually matter to the people in power. That's just for the peasants to distract themselves with so.they spend more money making the people with money more money.
All that matters to any VC providing seed funding is, 'will I make money?' That's it. That's the only thing that matters. Who you are, your story, your bullshit...Nah...that's just marketing you use to make those rich fucks invest in you in the hopes that you all make money.
That's the truth of YC or any other person offering money to your company in exchange for future profits.
Who you are only matters as far as 'will who you are make profit?'
If it won't well, you're shit outta luck buds.
All this wishy, washy feelings bullshit the world is focused on doesn't really matter when it comes to making money when it involves people with lots of money. That shit doesn't actually matter to the people in power. That's just for the peasants to distract themselves with so.they spend more money making the people with money more money.
All that matters to any VC providing seed funding is, 'will I make money?' That's it. That's the only thing that matters. Who you are, your story, your bullshit...Nah...that's just marketing you use to make those rich fucks invest in you in the hopes that you all make money.
That's the truth of YC or any other person offering money to your company in exchange for future profits.
Who you are only matters as far as 'will who you are make profit?'
If it won't well, you're shit outta luck buds.
You should put your contact info in your profile or as a comment in this thread. Others, like myself, would like to contact you.
I just did.
I will only reply to messages if it seems a conversation is warranted. I've had the experience on HN and other groups of someone contacting you with something that looks interesting only to identify you and then go away. Not interested in that at all. I hope you understand.
I will only reply to messages if it seems a conversation is warranted. I've had the experience on HN and other groups of someone contacting you with something that looks interesting only to identify you and then go away. Not interested in that at all. I hope you understand.
Just a heads-up: for your contact information to appear in your profile, you need to include it in the "about" text area. The "email" field is only visible to moderators.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't YC started explicitly to select drastically younger founders at a time when the prevailing narrative was that startup founders should be generally around 30 for optimum likelihood of success?
Given that history, how should we interpret this critique? Has YC failed to evolve alongside the shift in its perception in the startup world?
Given that history, how should we interpret this critique? Has YC failed to evolve alongside the shift in its perception in the startup world?
Correct, and yet YC has also greatly grown-up from it's humble start of 20K and a flight to find a flop-house in Palo Alto.
I agree with OP's point on the inherant age discrimination within technology, I say this because I was once a biased younger human who didn't have the life experience to understand the other side.
I remember saying "software is a young man's game", I cringe at times of the hubris of the earlier me, it's really funny how time works.
Now I'm an executive as opposed to a hotshot programmer, with the responsibility to help lead a team of diverse humans. I marvel at the brilliance of some of the talent that is emerging in the software space and yet I wonder if we aren't doing enough to teach ethics and help humans address their biases earlier.
But we idolize the hackers who burn through their days and nights converting caffeine, beer, snacks to functional software and hardware.
Even Elon Musk slept on the assembly line of the Tesla plant, so it's not like executives are liberated from this self immolation.
As for those who self-fund or are solo founders in general, you've got a hard road ahead of you, finding those early believers (co-founders) is mega important, I've never been able to make something of serious consequence without a team of hardworking humans to help. When the startup days are hard, they are there to cheer you up, when you're crushing it, they're celebrating the wins. I will say that the best companies are a team game.
OP, I really wish you the best of luck, reachout if you ever wanna, it's nice to vent.
I agree with OP's point on the inherant age discrimination within technology, I say this because I was once a biased younger human who didn't have the life experience to understand the other side.
I remember saying "software is a young man's game", I cringe at times of the hubris of the earlier me, it's really funny how time works.
Now I'm an executive as opposed to a hotshot programmer, with the responsibility to help lead a team of diverse humans. I marvel at the brilliance of some of the talent that is emerging in the software space and yet I wonder if we aren't doing enough to teach ethics and help humans address their biases earlier.
But we idolize the hackers who burn through their days and nights converting caffeine, beer, snacks to functional software and hardware.
Even Elon Musk slept on the assembly line of the Tesla plant, so it's not like executives are liberated from this self immolation.
As for those who self-fund or are solo founders in general, you've got a hard road ahead of you, finding those early believers (co-founders) is mega important, I've never been able to make something of serious consequence without a team of hardworking humans to help. When the startup days are hard, they are there to cheer you up, when you're crushing it, they're celebrating the wins. I will say that the best companies are a team game.
OP, I really wish you the best of luck, reachout if you ever wanna, it's nice to vent.
[deleted]
> I agree with OP's point on the inherant age discrimination within technology, I say this because I was once a biased younger human who didn't have the life experience to understand the other side.
Thanks. Most people never stop to engage in a little introspection and think, you see a lot of that in comments.
Perhaps I was fortunate enough in life to have come up through a different path. At 19 I went to work as an engineer at a place where everyone was 10 to 15 years older than me. I was still in school, it was just a work title, but I was treated as a full engineer.
Unlike some of the tech companies I have worked for as an older person, the ratio of young-to-older where I worked at 19 was seriously skewed towards older experienced engineers. In fact, I was the only sub-30 year old in the team. My attitude was humble and simple: I want to learn from everyone who is willing to teach me. And teach they did. This was my start into becoming multidisciplinary. For example, one of the mechanical engineers ran the machine shop. He'd rope me in to help make parts on the manual Bridgeport and, eventually, design them and make them on the CNC machines. It was like that with just about everything that went on in the place. One day I could be designing analog circuits at me desk and the next on the roof helping fix a 20 ton air conditioning unit. I loved it.
One day the VP of Engineering called me into his office. He sketched out a full system on a piece of paper. Just basic I/O and some notes on important functionality. He said: This is your project now. I need you to design and build every single one of these boxes. I said: "But, I don't know enough to do this, it's fairly advanced stuff". He said: "I know you can do it. You can learn what you don't know. And the guys will help you with anything you need. Can you do it?" I said "yes". It took a year and a great deal of effort, but I got it done. That was incredibly valuable and I often look back at that moment as a seminal event in my life.
Anyhow, a long way to say that the obvious existence of age bias in technology is likely creating problems we don't yet understand. I can't predict what this means. All I know is that young engineers just out of university just don't know enough. It would be of great value to them to enter the workforce under the wing of older, more experienced engineers rather than having contempt for them.
I have personally experienced the ugliness of what this lack of humanity can produce. I was having a conversation with an engineer in the team I was supporting in the course of one of my consulting engagements. His design of a subassembly intended to go into a spacecraft was flawed. It didn't take me long to realize this because, well, I have a lot of experience. I brought this up during a cordial one-on-one conversation. The response was, almost verbatim: "I have a Masters degree from MIT. I know what I am doing". Six months and a quarter of a million dollars later, the entire assembly disintegrates on the vibration table, precisely as I predicted. What's sad is that, even after that, he remained defiant and refused to listen to me. At some point I just gave up. I saw too much of that from others. I did whatever I could to help but was not about to take on a cultural problem I had no way to address.
Mentorship is important, yet it requires the student to be receptive and humble.
Thanks. Most people never stop to engage in a little introspection and think, you see a lot of that in comments.
Perhaps I was fortunate enough in life to have come up through a different path. At 19 I went to work as an engineer at a place where everyone was 10 to 15 years older than me. I was still in school, it was just a work title, but I was treated as a full engineer.
Unlike some of the tech companies I have worked for as an older person, the ratio of young-to-older where I worked at 19 was seriously skewed towards older experienced engineers. In fact, I was the only sub-30 year old in the team. My attitude was humble and simple: I want to learn from everyone who is willing to teach me. And teach they did. This was my start into becoming multidisciplinary. For example, one of the mechanical engineers ran the machine shop. He'd rope me in to help make parts on the manual Bridgeport and, eventually, design them and make them on the CNC machines. It was like that with just about everything that went on in the place. One day I could be designing analog circuits at me desk and the next on the roof helping fix a 20 ton air conditioning unit. I loved it.
One day the VP of Engineering called me into his office. He sketched out a full system on a piece of paper. Just basic I/O and some notes on important functionality. He said: This is your project now. I need you to design and build every single one of these boxes. I said: "But, I don't know enough to do this, it's fairly advanced stuff". He said: "I know you can do it. You can learn what you don't know. And the guys will help you with anything you need. Can you do it?" I said "yes". It took a year and a great deal of effort, but I got it done. That was incredibly valuable and I often look back at that moment as a seminal event in my life.
Anyhow, a long way to say that the obvious existence of age bias in technology is likely creating problems we don't yet understand. I can't predict what this means. All I know is that young engineers just out of university just don't know enough. It would be of great value to them to enter the workforce under the wing of older, more experienced engineers rather than having contempt for them.
I have personally experienced the ugliness of what this lack of humanity can produce. I was having a conversation with an engineer in the team I was supporting in the course of one of my consulting engagements. His design of a subassembly intended to go into a spacecraft was flawed. It didn't take me long to realize this because, well, I have a lot of experience. I brought this up during a cordial one-on-one conversation. The response was, almost verbatim: "I have a Masters degree from MIT. I know what I am doing". Six months and a quarter of a million dollars later, the entire assembly disintegrates on the vibration table, precisely as I predicted. What's sad is that, even after that, he remained defiant and refused to listen to me. At some point I just gave up. I saw too much of that from others. I did whatever I could to help but was not about to take on a cultural problem I had no way to address.
Mentorship is important, yet it requires the student to be receptive and humble.
“Mentorship is important, yet it requires the student to be receptive and humble.”
This is a key point (not only in engineering). In fact, I think it defines whether someone will excel at a faster rate than others with similar years of experience. Most of the time it is better to observe and listen in these circumstances and then decide if the advice makes sense with independent thought. Arguing or resisting while a mentor is discussing with you creates friction that can reduce the benefits of the mentoring relationship.
This is a key point (not only in engineering). In fact, I think it defines whether someone will excel at a faster rate than others with similar years of experience. Most of the time it is better to observe and listen in these circumstances and then decide if the advice makes sense with independent thought. Arguing or resisting while a mentor is discussing with you creates friction that can reduce the benefits of the mentoring relationship.
You've got YC one-itis. There are a zillion other places to raise money. Any one funding source says no 98% of the time, it has nothing to do with you.
-a 55 year old founder who just raised a $20M Series A
-a 55 year old founder who just raised a $20M Series A
I think that might be the point op was making. “Done with YC” == “Done thinking YC is the only way.” I’m not sure though.
That's it, kind of.
I would say "Done thinking YC is the right fit for me" could be more accurate.
Of course, now they've flagged the thread, so not sure if any of this discussion matters. Instead of cancelling the discussion, it should be actively promoted.
I am not accusing of YC doing anything explicitly. I think they make the right decisions when it comes to what you need in a young team in order to succeed. An example of this is the multiple founder bias. Right on point. Young people are just not equipped for the brutality entrepreneurship can deliver.
I also think that some of their process results in unintentional age bias. Asking for age is one example. Older founders might not need or want co-founders. And relocation is something might be impossible as well. As an example, in my case, I have full industrial-class manufacturing capabilities where I live. Moving to YC for three months, quite literally, means I would be far less efficient and likely get very little done. Or, I would have to abandon work on hardware and focus solely on software.
I would say "Done thinking YC is the right fit for me" could be more accurate.
Of course, now they've flagged the thread, so not sure if any of this discussion matters. Instead of cancelling the discussion, it should be actively promoted.
I am not accusing of YC doing anything explicitly. I think they make the right decisions when it comes to what you need in a young team in order to succeed. An example of this is the multiple founder bias. Right on point. Young people are just not equipped for the brutality entrepreneurship can deliver.
I also think that some of their process results in unintentional age bias. Asking for age is one example. Older founders might not need or want co-founders. And relocation is something might be impossible as well. As an example, in my case, I have full industrial-class manufacturing capabilities where I live. Moving to YC for three months, quite literally, means I would be far less efficient and likely get very little done. Or, I would have to abandon work on hardware and focus solely on software.
They didn't cancel the discussion; users did. I didn't flag this thread, but thought about it. It's got nothing to do with the validity of your argument. I'm in my 40s, am alert to ageism, and tend to think it's a real thing. But threads like this, where there's barely even circumstantial evidence in the story as presented (the whole story might be much clearer!) tend to be total shitshows as threads.
I think the bias towards founder teams is especially problematic. If I was trying to marshal a case that YC pattern-matches on 25-year-old top-school grads, I'd leave the solo-founder thing out. They're right about solo founders, and they're right along multiple dimensions. We can have a healthy debate about that, but all it'll do is muddy the waters about the ageism thing.
It sounds to me, given all the circumstances you've rattled off, the YC just isn't a fit for what you want to do. It wasn't at all a fit for my last couple businesses, either, and they did (/are doing) great.
I think the bias towards founder teams is especially problematic. If I was trying to marshal a case that YC pattern-matches on 25-year-old top-school grads, I'd leave the solo-founder thing out. They're right about solo founders, and they're right along multiple dimensions. We can have a healthy debate about that, but all it'll do is muddy the waters about the ageism thing.
It sounds to me, given all the circumstances you've rattled off, the YC just isn't a fit for what you want to do. It wasn't at all a fit for my last couple businesses, either, and they did (/are doing) great.
Unrelated and I expect to be downvoted but you were right https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1428764
The U.S did leave Afghanistan and now the Taliban's are about taking over, I'm always stunned when I see decade old predictions that were accurate.
The U.S did leave Afghanistan and now the Taliban's are about taking over, I'm always stunned when I see decade old predictions that were accurate.
> now they've flagged the thread
Just to be clear, users flagged it, not moderators.
When you see [flagged] on a submission, it nearly always means that users flagged it (this is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html).
Just to be clear, users flagged it, not moderators.
When you see [flagged] on a submission, it nearly always means that users flagged it (this is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html).
> Just to be clear, users flagged it, not moderators.
I understand this. In this case "they" did not mean YC. Maybe I should have clarified.
I understand this. In this case "they" did not mean YC. Maybe I should have clarified.
You seem to have raised money before almost 20 years ago. That sure must help.
That's precisely why being an older person helps. You have experience under your belt. If you're 55 and have never done anything, that's a strong signal to not invest in you, since you're unlikely to do something now.
20-year-olds are risks. 55-year-old have track records.
20-year-olds are risks. 55-year-old have track records.
Experience with fundraising under your belt, yes. That was my point.
A 55 year old who is new to entrepreneurship should be viewed as analogous to a 20 year old, not worse. Track record should be evaluated without reference to age, there's nothing wrong with pivoting in your career. I thought maybe OP was reading into things too much (and maybe he is with respect to YC), but you're proving his point.
A fifty five year old has more track record upon which to form a judgement.
A twenty year old who can't find cofounders is more likely to be a positive outlier than a fifty five year old who can't. There are another thirty-five years of adult people skills there. If a person knows a cofounder would help but eschews finding one, it's not a strong positive signal.
A twenty year old who can't find cofounders is more likely to be a positive outlier than a fifty five year old who can't. There are another thirty-five years of adult people skills there. If a person knows a cofounder would help but eschews finding one, it's not a strong positive signal.
I'm not sure that's true, a 20 year old is among their peers when trying to find a cofounder. I would expect it to be harder for a 55 year old to find a cofounder. I understand judging on not having a cofounder period, but age shouldn't come into it directly.
It's true an older person has more past, but if they were in a different line of work before there is only so much info that can be gained from it. It shouldn't be treated as a negative, at least not any more so than a fresh out of college kid is viewed.
At the end of the day it is quite literally age discrimination when you start making different judgements about the same measures (like presence of cofounder for example) just because of someone's age. To me that is clearly wrong. I don't have a problem with judging on factors that happen to relate to age (again like presence of cofounder), but however a particular person scores on that metric has to be taken at face value, not with reference to age.
It's true an older person has more past, but if they were in a different line of work before there is only so much info that can be gained from it. It shouldn't be treated as a negative, at least not any more so than a fresh out of college kid is viewed.
At the end of the day it is quite literally age discrimination when you start making different judgements about the same measures (like presence of cofounder for example) just because of someone's age. To me that is clearly wrong. I don't have a problem with judging on factors that happen to relate to age (again like presence of cofounder), but however a particular person scores on that metric has to be taken at face value, not with reference to age.
No cofounders is a known problem when it comes to YC applications.
Finding a cofounder is not going to be among the hardest problems either will face.
It is not unreasonable to expect significantly greater resourcefulness from a fifty-five year old than a twenty year old when it comes to any particular problem.
Finding a cofounder is not going to be among the hardest problems either will face.
It is not unreasonable to expect significantly greater resourcefulness from a fifty-five year old than a twenty year old when it comes to any particular problem.
Very self selective. You can't complain that your age is being used against you and then use other people ages who happen to be yours against them by gatekeeping.. if you haven't done x or raise y before my age that's a strong signal...
In the same manner your age is being used against you.. don't use it against others.
In the same manner your age is being used against you.. don't use it against others.
Yes. Twenty year olds have unrealized potential. At fifty-five, it is not unfair to call it wasted potential.
You know there are other career paths besides start up, right? Is it wasted potential for someone to be a doctor for 25 years and then decide they want to pursue some idea for a new medical device? Hell, I think certain spaces could use more entrepreneurs that have spent time on the ground first - edtech is a prime example.
I don't know if OP is qualified for YC but I'd hardly call the career he describes a waste.
I don't know if OP is qualified for YC but I'd hardly call the career he describes a waste.
Yes, of course. Indeed I consider parenting and friendships better metrics of success than career.
In terms of a snap business decision, the hypothetical fifty-five year old doctor who cannot get anyone to jump off the bridge with them is probably not worth making a bet on. Between friendships and personal relationships, nobody who knows them is willing to make a leap of faith. Or the doctor is unwilling to work with someone else.
If not having a cofounder was not a known problem, things would be different. But it is a known problem. A mature adult who cannot solve it doesn't get as much slack as a kid who can't. The kid is more likely to have extenuating circumstances. The adult not really.
In terms of a snap business decision, the hypothetical fifty-five year old doctor who cannot get anyone to jump off the bridge with them is probably not worth making a bet on. Between friendships and personal relationships, nobody who knows them is willing to make a leap of faith. Or the doctor is unwilling to work with someone else.
If not having a cofounder was not a known problem, things would be different. But it is a known problem. A mature adult who cannot solve it doesn't get as much slack as a kid who can't. The kid is more likely to have extenuating circumstances. The adult not really.
[deleted]
This doesn't make sense. What is "never done anything" supposed to mean?
I've worked with people in their 50s who have never raised money or started their own business but are incredibly capable with knowledge, experience and connections that would give them a massive advantage if they were to compete against younger founders.
I've worked with people in their 50s who have never raised money or started their own business but are incredibly capable with knowledge, experience and connections that would give them a massive advantage if they were to compete against younger founders.
It means precisely that -- if you're in your 50s, and have the experience of someone in their 20s, that's a red flag.
Good:
- You ran a successful business
- You managed a division at Google
- You were faculty at an elite university
- You were a management consultant at an elite firm, and build out a rolodex of elite connections
- You had a diverse array of jobs which give you a unique skillset for the startup at hand. For example, if you worked in a hospital, in China, and as an EE, you might be in a unique position to start a medical devices outsourcing firm.
Etc.
Bad:
- Spending 35 years as a SWE at a random company.
- A series of random jobs, with no coherence or anything of note (e.g. sales rep, admin, IT, etc.)
- ... and so on.
"incredibly capable with knowledge, experience and connections that would give them a massive advantage" means you can either get funding from a friend who knows you, or you probably want to find some way to signal that. If you haven't found a way to signal that in 35 years, odds are you won't be able to e.g. signal why someone should partner with you, buy your product, work for you, etc.
Good:
- You ran a successful business
- You managed a division at Google
- You were faculty at an elite university
- You were a management consultant at an elite firm, and build out a rolodex of elite connections
- You had a diverse array of jobs which give you a unique skillset for the startup at hand. For example, if you worked in a hospital, in China, and as an EE, you might be in a unique position to start a medical devices outsourcing firm.
Etc.
Bad:
- Spending 35 years as a SWE at a random company.
- A series of random jobs, with no coherence or anything of note (e.g. sales rep, admin, IT, etc.)
- ... and so on.
"incredibly capable with knowledge, experience and connections that would give them a massive advantage" means you can either get funding from a friend who knows you, or you probably want to find some way to signal that. If you haven't found a way to signal that in 35 years, odds are you won't be able to e.g. signal why someone should partner with you, buy your product, work for you, etc.
I had a convo with an angel who was asking me (for some reason) for advice on breaking into the YC investor network.
The most surprising thing is that angels appear to be semi-excluded now. I don’t have anything more than two datapoints:
1. That angel who reached out to me
2. The fact that the YC investor demo day application explicitly excludes angels.
Of course, #2 is misleading. You can certainly submit an app as an angel. You just can’t fill out >5 of the fields, because they begin with “If you represent an investment firm…”
The takeaway for me was, ironically, there may be an opportunity for angels to band together and take some risks. YC is all about risk analysis. If they don’t want to risk it on a 58yo solo founder with satellites in orbit, perhaps others will.
But you’re right about YC one-itis. Right now it’s hard to see any alternatives. They do exist, though.
EDIT: By the way, a word to OP: don’t take rejection so hard. (http://www.paulgraham.com/judgement.html helps with this.) One of the key features of YC is that they invest in people who look like a good bet. As I was reading though your post, I couldn’t help but think that pivoting a few times may not be a good bet. It’s true that startups do pivot, but not having a clear idea of who your customers are is also a warning sign.
As someone else said, put some contact info in your profile. You’ll get dozens of people reaching out to you from this thread if you hurry.
Of course, you could be right about the discrimination aspect, which is different. In that case, rejection would be personal.
The most surprising thing is that angels appear to be semi-excluded now. I don’t have anything more than two datapoints:
1. That angel who reached out to me
2. The fact that the YC investor demo day application explicitly excludes angels.
Of course, #2 is misleading. You can certainly submit an app as an angel. You just can’t fill out >5 of the fields, because they begin with “If you represent an investment firm…”
The takeaway for me was, ironically, there may be an opportunity for angels to band together and take some risks. YC is all about risk analysis. If they don’t want to risk it on a 58yo solo founder with satellites in orbit, perhaps others will.
But you’re right about YC one-itis. Right now it’s hard to see any alternatives. They do exist, though.
EDIT: By the way, a word to OP: don’t take rejection so hard. (http://www.paulgraham.com/judgement.html helps with this.) One of the key features of YC is that they invest in people who look like a good bet. As I was reading though your post, I couldn’t help but think that pivoting a few times may not be a good bet. It’s true that startups do pivot, but not having a clear idea of who your customers are is also a warning sign.
As someone else said, put some contact info in your profile. You’ll get dozens of people reaching out to you from this thread if you hurry.
Of course, you could be right about the discrimination aspect, which is different. In that case, rejection would be personal.
> The most surprising thing is that angels appear to be semi-excluded now.
That might be a consequence from that Dreamworld debacle... Maybe... Hopefully...
Having an obvious scam legitimizing themselves through YCombinator was at the very least very disconcerting.
(Just a random person's opinion)
https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/dreamworld
That might be a consequence from that Dreamworld debacle... Maybe... Hopefully...
Having an obvious scam legitimizing themselves through YCombinator was at the very least very disconcerting.
(Just a random person's opinion)
https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/dreamworld
Congrats.
As an older founder, it's easier to raise $20M Series A than as a younger founder. I'm pretty confident I have a much better chance of raising money than I did a decade or two ago. To be specific, I think I would have had almost no chance way back when, and I think I'd probably have better-than-even-odds today, if I tried (which I wouldn't; I'm committed to what I'm doing).
However, that doesn't mean places don't age-discriminate.
Truth of the matter is, I'd enjoy doing Y-Combinator at some point in my life, but I don't think it will every be possible:
- I don't think they'd take someone like me
- If they did, once you have kids and mortgage, you can't relocate
- If you do, once you have kids, you can't do the Y-Combinator lifestyle of 80 hour work weeks, sprints, and ramen
- The offer would be exploitative, for people with more senior backgrounds. Perhaps I can get by this, but 7% is a lot to give up for advising.
Y-Combinator: "We think that $125k is currently the right amount for founders to be able to run their company and pay expenses for around 5-6 months, and sometimes even longer" (https://www.ycombinator.com/deal/)
That's great for a grad student, but I think a lot of people read this to mean "no older people." I mean, I might be able to self-finance or raise capital, but founding team for $125k for 6+ months? That's delusional if you're out-of-school and have expenses.
However, that doesn't mean places don't age-discriminate.
Truth of the matter is, I'd enjoy doing Y-Combinator at some point in my life, but I don't think it will every be possible:
- I don't think they'd take someone like me
- If they did, once you have kids and mortgage, you can't relocate
- If you do, once you have kids, you can't do the Y-Combinator lifestyle of 80 hour work weeks, sprints, and ramen
- The offer would be exploitative, for people with more senior backgrounds. Perhaps I can get by this, but 7% is a lot to give up for advising.
Y-Combinator: "We think that $125k is currently the right amount for founders to be able to run their company and pay expenses for around 5-6 months, and sometimes even longer" (https://www.ycombinator.com/deal/)
That's great for a grad student, but I think a lot of people read this to mean "no older people." I mean, I might be able to self-finance or raise capital, but founding team for $125k for 6+ months? That's delusional if you're out-of-school and have expenses.
Hasn't COVID moved the whole relocation thing out of the way?
The move to SFBA is a real issue, and an obstacle for anyone with family commitments. I'm not sure what they can realistically do about it, since part of the premise of the program is that you're benefiting from being physically proximate to them.
The rest of this, I think you're wrong about.
I'm at a YC company right now (Fly.io) --- technically, I'm a YC founder at Fly.io --- and I've spent the last several years working directly with YC companies, and I haven't perceived any distinctive "80 hour work week, subsist on ramen" lifestyle out of those companies. I know why people believe this about YC companies, and I think it's a convenient fiction YC itself sort of deliberately doesn't knock back, but I don't think there's much truth to it.
I used to think 7% was ludicrous for what YC was bringing to the table, but YC brings a lot more to the table now than it did when I thought that. There are cynical ways to look at the YC benefit and there are generous ways to look at it, but either way: if you're going to go on to raise more money, you're getting something significantly more than $125k for the share you give up.
I'd be more concerned about the "$125k for a founding team is ludicrous" thing but for the fact that for me, and for most of the people I talk to about this stuff, the alternative to YC is bootstrapping and consulting. If you're looking at the money YC gives you for the session as the entire financial permission structure for your company, you weren't going to succeed no matter who invested in your company.
The rest of this, I think you're wrong about.
I'm at a YC company right now (Fly.io) --- technically, I'm a YC founder at Fly.io --- and I've spent the last several years working directly with YC companies, and I haven't perceived any distinctive "80 hour work week, subsist on ramen" lifestyle out of those companies. I know why people believe this about YC companies, and I think it's a convenient fiction YC itself sort of deliberately doesn't knock back, but I don't think there's much truth to it.
I used to think 7% was ludicrous for what YC was bringing to the table, but YC brings a lot more to the table now than it did when I thought that. There are cynical ways to look at the YC benefit and there are generous ways to look at it, but either way: if you're going to go on to raise more money, you're getting something significantly more than $125k for the share you give up.
I'd be more concerned about the "$125k for a founding team is ludicrous" thing but for the fact that for me, and for most of the people I talk to about this stuff, the alternative to YC is bootstrapping and consulting. If you're looking at the money YC gives you for the session as the entire financial permission structure for your company, you weren't going to succeed no matter who invested in your company.
To jump in for a second as the OP. What is also interesting about me is that I do not need a single dime from YC. I value their input enough that I would easily give 7% for a $1 investment. Part of being where I am is that I have secured myself financially to the extent that my thinking about YC as an option wasn't at all related to startup money. I don't need it. I own a quarter million dollar industrial-grade shop perfectly capable of manufacturing just about anything I need. What I can't manufacture directly I can get made through myriad industry relationships for almost nothing.
The primary value I saw in trying to enter YC was about driving the inflection point through a larger investment after self-funding everything up to and including getting product in front of prospective customers, booking some sales and demonstrating traction. At that point, I wanted to have both the financial horsepower and network available to push hard on the accelerator.
My prior experience taught me that being starved of cash is the single most difficult hurdle to jump over. I put over $300K of my own money into my last serious startup. That money went a long way because I was able to wear so many hats (and I was working from my garage).
The problem surfaced when I had to grow. I was starved for cash. It was as twice as painful as anyone could possibly imagined. The slope of your growth curve, at some point, becomes a function of financial horsepower. I mortgaged my home and pulled out another $250K. That helped, but it wasn't enough. Hardware is hard for a reason. You need cash, lots of it.
The inflection point started to appear in 2008, it took an indescribably effort and unimaginable personal sacrifice to get there from starting in my garage in 2001. At the peak I closed a five million dollar sale that was going to provide enough money to truly put the business on the map and displace multi-billion dollar market-leader companies from the segment we were in.
And then the economic implosion happened. Our five million dollar client defaulted on the contract. The company went from having an acquisition offer to the tune of tens of millions dollars on the table to being as close to bankruptcy as you can get by mid 2009. I almost closed another multi-million dollar sale that would have saved the business in 2010. In the end, the tail end of the financial crisis ended-up imploding that potential sale, and that was the end of it.
Life can be an interesting ride for entrepreneurs.
The primary value I saw in trying to enter YC was about driving the inflection point through a larger investment after self-funding everything up to and including getting product in front of prospective customers, booking some sales and demonstrating traction. At that point, I wanted to have both the financial horsepower and network available to push hard on the accelerator.
My prior experience taught me that being starved of cash is the single most difficult hurdle to jump over. I put over $300K of my own money into my last serious startup. That money went a long way because I was able to wear so many hats (and I was working from my garage).
The problem surfaced when I had to grow. I was starved for cash. It was as twice as painful as anyone could possibly imagined. The slope of your growth curve, at some point, becomes a function of financial horsepower. I mortgaged my home and pulled out another $250K. That helped, but it wasn't enough. Hardware is hard for a reason. You need cash, lots of it.
The inflection point started to appear in 2008, it took an indescribably effort and unimaginable personal sacrifice to get there from starting in my garage in 2001. At the peak I closed a five million dollar sale that was going to provide enough money to truly put the business on the map and displace multi-billion dollar market-leader companies from the segment we were in.
And then the economic implosion happened. Our five million dollar client defaulted on the contract. The company went from having an acquisition offer to the tune of tens of millions dollars on the table to being as close to bankruptcy as you can get by mid 2009. I almost closed another multi-million dollar sale that would have saved the business in 2010. In the end, the tail end of the financial crisis ended-up imploding that potential sale, and that was the end of it.
Life can be an interesting ride for entrepreneurs.
Please read the YC text again.
The problem isn't the offer, so much as the rationale behind the offer. It's perfectly possible to make a similar offer without being ageist:
* Grad schools do that. "Learn; we'll give you $24k per year as a stipend."
* YC could pitch the $125k, a for example, a means to improve inclusiveness and DEI.
* Etc.
That's not what they do. They say that the program is for founding teams for whom $125k will cover a half-year of expenses, at least. That means young teams. There's a lot of ageist copy from YC. That's why I assume I'm not welcome there.
The problem isn't the offer, so much as the rationale behind the offer. It's perfectly possible to make a similar offer without being ageist:
* Grad schools do that. "Learn; we'll give you $24k per year as a stipend."
* YC could pitch the $125k, a for example, a means to improve inclusiveness and DEI.
* Etc.
That's not what they do. They say that the program is for founding teams for whom $125k will cover a half-year of expenses, at least. That means young teams. There's a lot of ageist copy from YC. That's why I assume I'm not welcome there.
Again, I'm (technically) a YC founder, I'm in my 40's, and I don't get that at all from the $125k number. If anything, I feel like I have an easier time with first-year startup expenses at this age than I did in my 20s.
My recollection is that $125k came about because when there was more money (and there was at one time) it was enough to tempt a non-trivial number of founders to fight over rather than build a company.
The problem, in so far as what I read on HN, was not three cofounders deciding to take the money and travel the world instead of building the company. The problem was that the founders who were interested in fighting over the money were distributed across many teams.
As for the realism of six months of expenses from $125k, thinking about it those terms is a signal that someone might not be a good fit. If it's a problem, it's a surmountable problem either through work (and luck) or through a willingness to fail.
It's a non-starter for non-startups.
The problem, in so far as what I read on HN, was not three cofounders deciding to take the money and travel the world instead of building the company. The problem was that the founders who were interested in fighting over the money were distributed across many teams.
As for the realism of six months of expenses from $125k, thinking about it those terms is a signal that someone might not be a good fit. If it's a problem, it's a surmountable problem either through work (and luck) or through a willingness to fail.
It's a non-starter for non-startups.
> because when there was more money (and there was at one time) it was enough to tempt a non-trivia
My recollection is the opposite. I picked a random web archive day 12+ years ago and confirmed it was a laughably small sum:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090302183945/http://ycombinato...
> We usually invest $5000 + $5000n, where n is the number of participating founders (i.e. 2 founders get $15,000, 3 get $20,000), in return for between 2% and 10% of the company. The median is 6%.
My recollection is the opposite. I picked a random web archive day 12+ years ago and confirmed it was a laughably small sum:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090302183945/http://ycombinato...
> We usually invest $5000 + $5000n, where n is the number of participating founders (i.e. 2 founders get $15,000, 3 get $20,000), in return for between 2% and 10% of the company. The median is 6%.
Originally it was that low. Then it went up until it hit the point of creating problems. Now it is where it is which is lower than where it once was but much higher than it was before the peak.
The increases started I believe via an outside investor (maybe Conway? maybe Arrington? maybe not) agreeing to spread dollars uniformly across each batch's portfolio. There were also things like AWS credits. Basically, there were miscellaneous efforts to extend the runway.
As YC has matured, the efforts have become more organized.
It's worth noting that the lower investments originally were more commensurate with both the cost of living for a few months in the Bay Area and with the valuations of startups...Reddit sold to Conde Nast for about $10 million and sub-million dollar funding rounds used to be news on the front page of Hacker News.
The increases started I believe via an outside investor (maybe Conway? maybe Arrington? maybe not) agreeing to spread dollars uniformly across each batch's portfolio. There were also things like AWS credits. Basically, there were miscellaneous efforts to extend the runway.
As YC has matured, the efforts have become more organized.
It's worth noting that the lower investments originally were more commensurate with both the cost of living for a few months in the Bay Area and with the valuations of startups...Reddit sold to Conde Nast for about $10 million and sub-million dollar funding rounds used to be news on the front page of Hacker News.
[deleted]
> You've got YC one-itis. There are a zillion other places to raise money. Any one funding source says no 98% of the time, it has nothing to do with you.
I don't think you read my post. Or, if you did, you didn't understand it. What you are saying has nothing to do with what I said, what I think of YC or anything in my post.
Congrats on raising capital. I never have. It seems you have in the past. Which explains why it might have been easier for you. I have, however closed five million dollar sales with single international customers for the startup I mentioned I self-funded and launched from my garage.
Different paths in life. If it hadn't been for 2008 I would be telling a very different story today. That's just the way things go sometimes.
I don't think you read my post. Or, if you did, you didn't understand it. What you are saying has nothing to do with what I said, what I think of YC or anything in my post.
Congrats on raising capital. I never have. It seems you have in the past. Which explains why it might have been easier for you. I have, however closed five million dollar sales with single international customers for the startup I mentioned I self-funded and launched from my garage.
Different paths in life. If it hadn't been for 2008 I would be telling a very different story today. That's just the way things go sometimes.
Make what your users want, and build your startup. Look for hockey stick growth. If you continue doing that, it won't matter whether or not you get into YC. YC should be a "nice-to-have" not a milestone.
From what I've read, YC also has a preference for companies with multiple founders. So being a solo probably didn't help.
He says as much in his post :
> An established bias against solo founders
And it is an age discriminator.
It gets a lot harder to get a team together after a certain age. Peers already have obligations.
> An established bias against solo founders
And it is an age discriminator.
It gets a lot harder to get a team together after a certain age. Peers already have obligations.
This is where the whole unconsious bias can be a world of crap comes up. Does requiring relocation discriminate against older people? Absolutely. Does highly favoring multiple cofounders discriminate against older people? Yep. But there are perfectly valid reasons to favor these properties that have nothing to do with age. That doesn't make it discriminatory, it makes it a bad fit for old people (myself included). So instead of trying to fit your square peg into YC's round hole, go find money elsewhere.
Apparently the median age at which founders start "billion dollar businesses" is 34 [0] (the same article references a HBR study that says that mentions an age of 45 for "successful" entrepreneurs). That would also generally correlate to an age where one's peers have ongoing obligations (financial, family).
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/27/super-founders-median-age-of...
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/27/super-founders-median-age-of...
that's entirely circular reasoning because if there was a bias against older founders, then by definition successful founders skew younger.
Only circular if the stats are only from within the YC ecosystem, but I believe the stats mentioned are across the entire startup ecosystem. If true, it would actually support the argument that YC does discriminate for reasons that are not supported by the evidence outside of their ecosystem. If 45 year olds represent the most successful entrepreneurs, why are they targeting inexperienced 22 year olds?
#1 question if you are an older founder (like me) why not bring in a cross-generational team? Perhaps bias can go both ways...
Having your team be cross-generational absolutely works. An age gap between co-founders is much more challenging, as it can create a whole host of expectation and alignment issues.
I have just scraped the comment section of the recent "Launch YC S21: Meet the Batch" announcement:
- Aditya and Karan (Warrant)
- Anta and Karthik (Inai)
- Nishant and Pranav (Nino Foods)
- Jan and Anahi (Perfekto)
- Bruno and Guilherme (Jestor)
- Antonio, Felipe, Joaquin and Francois (Chipax)
- Ali and Omair (Abhi)
As with every place "you need to fit in": Do you fit in here?
I have the feeling that YC have "their favs": Kind of: Young, global and more and more very "boring"/normal business. They rather replace existing businesses with something better, than to innovate/disrupt. It works for them now, since they are such a household brand.
- Aditya and Karan (Warrant)
- Anta and Karthik (Inai)
- Nishant and Pranav (Nino Foods)
- Jan and Anahi (Perfekto)
- Bruno and Guilherme (Jestor)
- Antonio, Felipe, Joaquin and Francois (Chipax)
- Ali and Omair (Abhi)
As with every place "you need to fit in": Do you fit in here?
I have the feeling that YC have "their favs": Kind of: Young, global and more and more very "boring"/normal business. They rather replace existing businesses with something better, than to innovate/disrupt. It works for them now, since they are such a household brand.
A few things.
- it's misleading to cherry-pick a single post. The analysis for all 400+ Launch HNs would look entirely different (https://news.ycombinator.com/launches).
- the type of startups you mention (extending an existing business to a large market) are more likely to be in an aggregate thread than a standalone Launch HN [1], so you've effectively assumed your conclusion.
- you presumably know nothing about the ages of those founders, so bringing them up in a post alleging age discrimination (or more precisely, not alleging age discrimination) and misleadingly adding the word "young" is... dubious.
- you list the founders' names but nothing about their startups. Why? Obviously because they have international origins. Following that with "do you fit in here" strikes me as a veiled slur.
- it's also pretty silly. Why shouldn't YC fund great startups regardless of where they come from? You'll find YC doing exactly that in every category: national background as well as all the others (race, gender, class, and yes, age).
[1] That's because, for this batch, we've been trying to give every YC startup who wants to launch on HN a chance to do so. That requires a huge number of editorial decisions because there are so many more startups than front page slots. I make the editorial decisions based not on the quality of the startup or their market (let alone irrelevant attributes of founders), but on how interesting the HN thread is likely to be to the community here. Mostly that has to do with avoiding repetition (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...). In other words, the considerations are completely unrelated to everything you're implying. I explained all this when announcing the aggregate launch threads: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27877280.
- it's misleading to cherry-pick a single post. The analysis for all 400+ Launch HNs would look entirely different (https://news.ycombinator.com/launches).
- the type of startups you mention (extending an existing business to a large market) are more likely to be in an aggregate thread than a standalone Launch HN [1], so you've effectively assumed your conclusion.
- you presumably know nothing about the ages of those founders, so bringing them up in a post alleging age discrimination (or more precisely, not alleging age discrimination) and misleadingly adding the word "young" is... dubious.
- you list the founders' names but nothing about their startups. Why? Obviously because they have international origins. Following that with "do you fit in here" strikes me as a veiled slur.
- it's also pretty silly. Why shouldn't YC fund great startups regardless of where they come from? You'll find YC doing exactly that in every category: national background as well as all the others (race, gender, class, and yes, age).
[1] That's because, for this batch, we've been trying to give every YC startup who wants to launch on HN a chance to do so. That requires a huge number of editorial decisions because there are so many more startups than front page slots. I make the editorial decisions based not on the quality of the startup or their market (let alone irrelevant attributes of founders), but on how interesting the HN thread is likely to be to the community here. Mostly that has to do with avoiding repetition (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...). In other words, the considerations are completely unrelated to everything you're implying. I explained all this when announcing the aggregate launch threads: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27877280.
> In other words, the considerations are completely unrelated to everything you're implying.
Discrimination and bias are often unconscious, rather than an explicit decision.
Suppose that YC was biased against X, and that therefore the startup pool you can select from contains mostly ~X. You could select for interesting, substantive startups in Meet The Batch threads, and it would still reveal the absence of X.
I'll be honest: I'm terrified of speaking with you lately, but I'm posting this because it's worth risking myself if it helps change someone's mind about bias. So, for whatever it's worth, there's my attempt.
Discrimination and bias are often unconscious, rather than an explicit decision.
Suppose that YC was biased against X, and that therefore the startup pool you can select from contains mostly ~X. You could select for interesting, substantive startups in Meet The Batch threads, and it would still reveal the absence of X.
I'll be honest: I'm terrified of speaking with you lately, but I'm posting this because it's worth risking myself if it helps change someone's mind about bias. So, for whatever it's worth, there's my attempt.
I deleted that sentence because it made my post too long, but since you've quoted it, I'll put it back. I was talking there about the editorial decision surrounding HN launches. That's not related to YC's funding decisions.
It's not clear to me what your point is, unless it was simply to mention unconscious bias. Saying that you or anyone would somehow be risking yourself by posting to HN is also a little obscure.
It's not clear to me what your point is, unless it was simply to mention unconscious bias. Saying that you or anyone would somehow be risking yourself by posting to HN is also a little obscure.
It's a risk any time I speak to you, because a large part of my life is HN, and speaking to you risks another penalty. I didn't mean it as an accusation, it just seems to be the mechanics of me-speaking-to-you.
I also apologize for quoting a sentence that you cut. That happened to me earlier, and it's always frustrating, even if it was unintentional.
My point was, your comment seems to be mistaken in a revealing way. If it were true that YC was biased, then your editorial decisions wouldn't be able to influence anything in relation to the bias. The bias would already have an impact on the startup pool that you can select from.
In other words, your decisions about HN's "Meet the Batch" threads seem unrelated to the question of YC's alleged age discrimination. But you felt that your decisions were related, since you were saying "We don't select for age" in regards to the Meet The Batch threads.
Bias is something that you can't force someone to care about. I'm hoping that it may be a lightbulb moment for you, as it once was for me. It's never any fun to be a part of an organization accused of some form of bias, but asking yourself "Could it be true?" is a mental exercise that personally I found helpful.
That said, you were correct that this commenter posted those startups without knowing the ages of the founders. It could be possible that those startups have older founders. But no one seems to be quite sure. It's lame of them to make an insinuation like that without knowing the ages of the founders – burden of proof – but it's also worth considering whether it's true, even if it was a lame accusation.
Anyway. I didn't say any of this to put you on the defensive. That'd be the opposite way to change your mind. Just think it over a moment, is all I ask.
EDIT: After re-reading this chain, perhaps I'm off the mark here (a common theme). From my perspective, it sounded like someone was saying "Well, it might be true; these startups do seem pretty young and trendy..." and then you were listing reasons why that was mistaken.
It sounded like you didn't necessarily care about whether YC is age discriminatory. My goal here was to convince you it may be worth caring about it.
If you already do care about that, then never mind. My mistake. I see now that your point about editorial decisions was an expansion of a different train of thought.
One last point to give a moment of pause: If you list N random politicians, most of them will probably be pretty old, because politics is biased against youth. If you list N random YC companies, will the ages of their founders tend to skew younger or older (relative to the proportion of those age groups that apply)? That might be one way to investigate the claim.
I also apologize for quoting a sentence that you cut. That happened to me earlier, and it's always frustrating, even if it was unintentional.
My point was, your comment seems to be mistaken in a revealing way. If it were true that YC was biased, then your editorial decisions wouldn't be able to influence anything in relation to the bias. The bias would already have an impact on the startup pool that you can select from.
In other words, your decisions about HN's "Meet the Batch" threads seem unrelated to the question of YC's alleged age discrimination. But you felt that your decisions were related, since you were saying "We don't select for age" in regards to the Meet The Batch threads.
Bias is something that you can't force someone to care about. I'm hoping that it may be a lightbulb moment for you, as it once was for me. It's never any fun to be a part of an organization accused of some form of bias, but asking yourself "Could it be true?" is a mental exercise that personally I found helpful.
That said, you were correct that this commenter posted those startups without knowing the ages of the founders. It could be possible that those startups have older founders. But no one seems to be quite sure. It's lame of them to make an insinuation like that without knowing the ages of the founders – burden of proof – but it's also worth considering whether it's true, even if it was a lame accusation.
Anyway. I didn't say any of this to put you on the defensive. That'd be the opposite way to change your mind. Just think it over a moment, is all I ask.
EDIT: After re-reading this chain, perhaps I'm off the mark here (a common theme). From my perspective, it sounded like someone was saying "Well, it might be true; these startups do seem pretty young and trendy..." and then you were listing reasons why that was mistaken.
It sounded like you didn't necessarily care about whether YC is age discriminatory. My goal here was to convince you it may be worth caring about it.
If you already do care about that, then never mind. My mistake. I see now that your point about editorial decisions was an expansion of a different train of thought.
One last point to give a moment of pause: If you list N random politicians, most of them will probably be pretty old, because politics is biased against youth. If you list N random YC companies, will the ages of their founders tend to skew younger or older (relative to the proportion of those age groups that apply)? That might be one way to investigate the claim.
This is a sensitive topic, so I hope my question comes off as genuinely curious and not invalidating to the OPs experience, but rather a general question about how applicant selection ought to work. I wonder if the OP has some qualities that are weakly or strongly correlated with age (e.g. number of "older silicon valley institutions" one has worked at), and YC was selecting on those factors rather than explicitly filtering based on age.
My question is: if there exists some correlation between a protected class and some other variable X, is it moral to select based on X?
What happens if X is highly predictive of some conventional success metric (e.g. ability to raise a series A)?
Things that come to mind: redlining, use of zip code in credit score prediction, etc. If we deem these immoral, is the implication that we should perform selection within protected classes, and within non-protected classes (e.g. p(X|is protected class)), and guarantee equality of outcome (or non-discrimination of protected classes based on X)?
Note that I'm not saying YC was doing this - might just be standard unconscious bias.
My question is: if there exists some correlation between a protected class and some other variable X, is it moral to select based on X?
What happens if X is highly predictive of some conventional success metric (e.g. ability to raise a series A)?
Things that come to mind: redlining, use of zip code in credit score prediction, etc. If we deem these immoral, is the implication that we should perform selection within protected classes, and within non-protected classes (e.g. p(X|is protected class)), and guarantee equality of outcome (or non-discrimination of protected classes based on X)?
Note that I'm not saying YC was doing this - might just be standard unconscious bias.
If you are a gatekeeper for an industry where protected classes are inversely correlated with success, then you should strongly consider the negative effect your gatekeeping has on the world.
Having a medical degree (for example) is inversely correlated with protected classes, so I'm not sure it is entirely up to industry gatekeepers to fix this. Having a college degree also is, so without a major overhaul of the way medical school works, there is only so much that can be done at that point either.
I agree it is something people need to think about more, and in the case of software engineering it is more feasible to directly address, as the degree is much less critical. I'm all for some companies introducing training programs to hire promising potential SWEs without much prior background. But just dropping all criteria that correlate with a protected class is not a feasible solution, and it is not always the case that people making these decisions are having a net negative impact.
I agree it is something people need to think about more, and in the case of software engineering it is more feasible to directly address, as the degree is much less critical. I'm all for some companies introducing training programs to hire promising potential SWEs without much prior background. But just dropping all criteria that correlate with a protected class is not a feasible solution, and it is not always the case that people making these decisions are having a net negative impact.
IMO it isn't inherently immoral to select based on some correlate if it's also correlated with success, but I think it depends a lot on the details. How important is the opportunity, what is the typical acceptance rate, are there analogous opportunities that are selected for using different metrics, etc. I think YC is okay on this front - kind of like access to Harvard instead of access to higher education in general.
That's just my opinion, and it is a tough, subjective question. However I think where things often go wrong in practice is that the metrics aren't actually correlated with success, or are very weakly so! I am not familiar with the YC process, but my experience with selective applications in general is that institutions are slow to update their methods, and often don't really back up their decisions with data.
Of course it is an extremely hard problem to predict start up success in the first place, that's pretty much the whole YC business model. So they should have a lot more incentive to determine the metrics that hold some real signal than a university or even a FAANG does. Which makes me think there are legitimate reasons they ask these questions, but I do hope they've considered the tradeoff in how much signal is obtained versus how much bias may be introduced.
As a bit of an aside, this is why I like the idea of pushing for more diversity between institutions instead of just within. If different places were more meaningfully different we should see more diversity in metrics used and hopefully this would result in a fairer landscape across the population without needing to enforce overbearing rules on individual institutions. Of course that makes the assumption that a particular set of metrics won't end up naturally dominating, but I'm fairly confident in that. Different people thrive in different environments, and honestly the measurements we currently have are full of uncertainty anyway.
That's just my opinion, and it is a tough, subjective question. However I think where things often go wrong in practice is that the metrics aren't actually correlated with success, or are very weakly so! I am not familiar with the YC process, but my experience with selective applications in general is that institutions are slow to update their methods, and often don't really back up their decisions with data.
Of course it is an extremely hard problem to predict start up success in the first place, that's pretty much the whole YC business model. So they should have a lot more incentive to determine the metrics that hold some real signal than a university or even a FAANG does. Which makes me think there are legitimate reasons they ask these questions, but I do hope they've considered the tradeoff in how much signal is obtained versus how much bias may be introduced.
As a bit of an aside, this is why I like the idea of pushing for more diversity between institutions instead of just within. If different places were more meaningfully different we should see more diversity in metrics used and hopefully this would result in a fairer landscape across the population without needing to enforce overbearing rules on individual institutions. Of course that makes the assumption that a particular set of metrics won't end up naturally dominating, but I'm fairly confident in that. Different people thrive in different environments, and honestly the measurements we currently have are full of uncertainty anyway.
My father-in-law holds degrees from Stanford and Harvard, and has similarly struggled to find a job as he's grown older. When I referred him to an open position at my company, his un-edited resume matched almost perfectly, but the recruiter called him "too operational" -- and obviously had not dug in to who he was. I didn't push it but it seemed that his gray hair visible in his LinkedIn profile was a put off. I can't understand this. What is their line of thinking? That older people are too set in their ways? They command too much salary? They will not be a cultural fit because of an age gap? Can anyone describe the position of those who slyly or effectively hire a younger crowd only? (I realize this is a different context than VC world, which the author is talking about but I think it's similar enough to contribute to the discussion here.)
> What is their line of thinking?
Bias, plain and simple.
Bias, plain and simple.
> What is their line of thinking? That older people are too set in their ways? They command too much salary? They will not be a cultural fit because of an age gap? Can anyone describe the position of those who slyly or effectively hire a younger crowd only?
All of the above. In my experience, hiring managers want to hire someone they can have fun with outside of work so commonalities such as age are very important
All of the above. In my experience, hiring managers want to hire someone they can have fun with outside of work so commonalities such as age are very important
My resume scares and likely confuses most people. Most EE's with 30 years of experience have been EE's their entire career. I hired a guy once out of Intel who had, at the time, devoted ten years to designing nothing but power supplies. I couldn't even ask him to design an embedded MCU board, much less write the code. That's fine, nothing wrong with that.
My case is diametrically opposite. I can design anything and tackle just about any discipline. And my resume shows it.
Back when I was just trying to take a break from entrepreneurship and take a job for a few years I got no callbacks at all. Finally a recruiter took pity on me and opened up.
He said I had two problems. If I was dealing with a small company, one look at my resume and their would fear that I wanted a job to learn their business and become a competitor. And, at a mid to large company, when dealing with a VP or manager making the hiring decision, my resume would make them fear I would be after their job after gaining a foothold. So, he said "Nobody is going to hire you. You have no choice but to stay an entrepreneur or lie.".
Not long after that I landed a nice contract to help get astronauts to the International Space Station. That was fun and interesting...yet I eventually ran into the realty that they were paying 20-somethings about 1/3 (or less) of what I was getting. When my work was done my contract had nowhere to go.
Fuck me.
My case is diametrically opposite. I can design anything and tackle just about any discipline. And my resume shows it.
Back when I was just trying to take a break from entrepreneurship and take a job for a few years I got no callbacks at all. Finally a recruiter took pity on me and opened up.
He said I had two problems. If I was dealing with a small company, one look at my resume and their would fear that I wanted a job to learn their business and become a competitor. And, at a mid to large company, when dealing with a VP or manager making the hiring decision, my resume would make them fear I would be after their job after gaining a foothold. So, he said "Nobody is going to hire you. You have no choice but to stay an entrepreneur or lie.".
Not long after that I landed a nice contract to help get astronauts to the International Space Station. That was fun and interesting...yet I eventually ran into the realty that they were paying 20-somethings about 1/3 (or less) of what I was getting. When my work was done my contract had nowhere to go.
Fuck me.
Paul Graham has basically admitted to age discrimination in the past, and YC is just not the panacea that its founders perpetrated. More companies in YC are worthless and fail, and the whole thing just smells of ladder-climbing. You're better off building value in your company than asking anyone else what to do.
I recall a young YC alumni claiming they applied 7 times before being accepted.
They generally give feedback on your application. There is likely something with your traction or potential market more than your age. I do agree with you there are some elements that make it harder as you get older.
That said:
https://techcrunch.com/2009/09/07/when-it-comes-to-founding-... The average age of startup founders is older than the press makes it seem.
I talk to people in each new batch of Y Combinator. The general consensus is that the average age of the founders seems like it is increasing as they fund harder and harder tech projects.
I coincidentally recommended a 58 year old founder about 18 months ago and they were interviewed.
That said:
https://techcrunch.com/2009/09/07/when-it-comes-to-founding-... The average age of startup founders is older than the press makes it seem.
I talk to people in each new batch of Y Combinator. The general consensus is that the average age of the founders seems like it is increasing as they fund harder and harder tech projects.
I coincidentally recommended a 58 year old founder about 18 months ago and they were interviewed.
> They generally give feedback on your application.
AFAIK this is absolutely not true.
AFAIK this is absolutely not true.
That’s a shame. I know several founders who email specific partners who have in experience in their industry and they seem to get more personalized rejections
Regular applicants definetly don't get this. YC says as much in the rejection email.
I guess it is all really easy when you are already connected.
I guess it is all really easy when you are already connected.
Nobody was connected when they started, not myself either. They got their partner contact publicly or from public events they hold
> They generally give feedback on your application
That has not been my experience. I can't find the email right now. If I remember correctly it had some boilerplate about to the effect that they can't give feedback on every application and not to feel bad because sometimes they have to make hard choices and it doesn't mean your startup idea is necessarily a bad one. I understand all of that. No issues at all.
That has not been my experience. I can't find the email right now. If I remember correctly it had some boilerplate about to the effect that they can't give feedback on every application and not to feel bad because sometimes they have to make hard choices and it doesn't mean your startup idea is necessarily a bad one. I understand all of that. No issues at all.
> An established bias against solo founders
Why is this against older people?
Why is this against older people?
Older engineers are far less likely to be able to team-up with college buddies to go off into startup-land.
Most everyone I know can't drop everything they are doing, their families and responsibilities to launch a startup. Entrepreneurship is very hard. Some of us have lived the life all of our lives. Others have jobs and they would like to keep it that way. Not judging, it's just the way it is.
Most everyone I know can't drop everything they are doing, their families and responsibilities to launch a startup. Entrepreneurship is very hard. Some of us have lived the life all of our lives. Others have jobs and they would like to keep it that way. Not judging, it's just the way it is.
"Cultural fit" is 99 times out of 100 blanket coverage for biases against, race, age, and ethnicity.
This.
I think the best way for you to ensure funding is to have revenue traction. One thing that trumps ageism (and all --isms) is greed. If you show revenue growth and traction, these greedy VCs will swallow all their rhetoric and blog posts, get down on all fours and wag their tails like puppies to get a whiff of your term sheet.
Note that Valley VCs are well-documented ageists: "Vinod Khosla told a conference that “people over forty-five basically die in terms of new ideas.” Michael Moritz, of Sequoia Capital, one of the most pedigreed firms in the tech world, once touted himself as “an incredibly enthusiastic fan of very talented twentysomethings starting companies.” His logic was simple: “They have great passion. They don’t have distractions like families and children and other things that get in the way.”" [1]
[1] https://newrepublic.com/article/117088/silicons-valleys-brut...
I think the best way for you to ensure funding is to have revenue traction. One thing that trumps ageism (and all --isms) is greed. If you show revenue growth and traction, these greedy VCs will swallow all their rhetoric and blog posts, get down on all fours and wag their tails like puppies to get a whiff of your term sheet.
Note that Valley VCs are well-documented ageists: "Vinod Khosla told a conference that “people over forty-five basically die in terms of new ideas.” Michael Moritz, of Sequoia Capital, one of the most pedigreed firms in the tech world, once touted himself as “an incredibly enthusiastic fan of very talented twentysomethings starting companies.” His logic was simple: “They have great passion. They don’t have distractions like families and children and other things that get in the way.”" [1]
[1] https://newrepublic.com/article/117088/silicons-valleys-brut...
YC doesn't select for "cultural fit".
Or do they simply select for proxy variables like age and marital status that inevitably create a cultural fit?
No, they don't do that either. To mention one data point, there's a founder in the current batch who has three small children and is a solo founder. I don't think YC cares about that sort of thing, other than that the group partners (the people who work most closely with founders) would do what they could to support them if they were getting overwhelmed.
When YC rejects an application it's because they don't think that startup (or that product/founder combination, let's say) is likely to become a big business. That's the theory, at least. Of course it's not going to be perfect in practice, but YC's success depends on getting it right, so there's a strong incentive not to just naively repeat the known, large-scale biases people tend to talk about (you mention age and marital status, one can add race, gender, class, education, national origin, and others).
Also, YC is pretty diligent about studying its failures—companies that applied to YC, were rejected, and went on to become successful—and if there were any obvious patterns in there, you can bet they'd be all over it. I'm not claiming that's sufficient to disprove bias but it must count for something.
When YC rejects an application it's because they don't think that startup (or that product/founder combination, let's say) is likely to become a big business. That's the theory, at least. Of course it's not going to be perfect in practice, but YC's success depends on getting it right, so there's a strong incentive not to just naively repeat the known, large-scale biases people tend to talk about (you mention age and marital status, one can add race, gender, class, education, national origin, and others).
Also, YC is pretty diligent about studying its failures—companies that applied to YC, were rejected, and went on to become successful—and if there were any obvious patterns in there, you can bet they'd be all over it. I'm not claiming that's sufficient to disprove bias but it must count for something.
I absolutely agree that age discrimination exists in our industry, and it’s even worse in SV. But I really think you’re barking up the wrong tree here. Anytime you have an institution with single digit acceptance rates, you invariably are going to have truly excellent candidates who don’t make it in.
Agreed. It feels like they're trying to claim that they were rejected for age... without providing any evidence. They don't want to come out and say it. But by suggesting enough, it's sure implied.
What evidence would convince you?
(It helps to imagine you're asking for evidence of gender discrimination.)
(It helps to imagine you're asking for evidence of gender discrimination.)
If you accuse people of discrimination (which is a serious accusation) you better have very good evidence. Nothing less is acceptable.
You didn't really answer the above question (What evidence would convince you)
Oh, you're right, I missed it. Hm, let's think together, it's a tough one, isn't it? Statistics? Let's say YC never invested in founders over 35. Would that be enough though? Maybe there are other reasons why people over 35 are not the greatest people to invest in and that's why they haven't done it? It's all hypothetical, but we can ask: in general, what proves discrimination?
I for sure don't think the main post is evidence of anything, so I struggle to see how it's getting so popular.
I for sure don't think the main post is evidence of anything, so I struggle to see how it's getting so popular.
> it's a tough one
For sure.
> Statistics
Bingo!
YC certainly keeps stats on their acceptance info. They don't accept 99% of those that apply. What % of those that get accepted are over 35, compared to those that apply? What % aren't white men? Multiple founders?
> I for sure don't think the main post is evidence of anything, so I struggle to see how it's getting so popular.
Because OP has a reason to believe they were discriminated against. They ask the question to A.) See if others come forward, B.) Hope/expect YC to produce the statistics we just talked about, either proving or disproving a pattern of discriminatory behavior. And if YC knows they don't discriminate based on age, there should be absolutely no issue with them producing their data supporting that claim, right?
For sure.
> Statistics
Bingo!
YC certainly keeps stats on their acceptance info. They don't accept 99% of those that apply. What % of those that get accepted are over 35, compared to those that apply? What % aren't white men? Multiple founders?
> I for sure don't think the main post is evidence of anything, so I struggle to see how it's getting so popular.
Because OP has a reason to believe they were discriminated against. They ask the question to A.) See if others come forward, B.) Hope/expect YC to produce the statistics we just talked about, either proving or disproving a pattern of discriminatory behavior. And if YC knows they don't discriminate based on age, there should be absolutely no issue with them producing their data supporting that claim, right?
And now you didn't answer the main question. Just because, let's say, stats showed they mostly invest in people under 35, does it mean they discriminate people over 35? If most of founders they invest in are white, does it mean they discriminate against asians, blacks etc.?
What are the appropriate percentages that show no discrimination? 50% of everything?
Once again, what proves discrimination?
If someone is in for the money, would they be discriminate against a certain group of people? Or would they invest in people with the best ideas and the highest probability of success? What kind of investors would prevail over the long term?
What are the appropriate percentages that show no discrimination? 50% of everything?
Once again, what proves discrimination?
If someone is in for the money, would they be discriminate against a certain group of people? Or would they invest in people with the best ideas and the highest probability of success? What kind of investors would prevail over the long term?
I feel like you've begun sealioning.
> Just because, let's say, stats showed they mostly invest in people under 35, does it mean they discriminate people over 35?
It's about rates, not just raw numbers. If equal amounts of over 35 and under 35 applicants, and consistently YoY you're taking 90% under 35, very clearly you're discriminating against the over 35 category.
> If most of founders they invest in are white, does it mean they discriminate against asians, blacks etc.?
Again, if 30% of applicants are not-white and you accept 2% of them, when generalized success rate is 10%, yes it would again be pretty clear you're discriminating against the non-white category.
> Once again, what proves discrimination?
More sealioning. When a group of people intentionally select for or against a certain group, as is evidenced by patterns of behavior over long periods of time.
> Just because, let's say, stats showed they mostly invest in people under 35, does it mean they discriminate people over 35?
It's about rates, not just raw numbers. If equal amounts of over 35 and under 35 applicants, and consistently YoY you're taking 90% under 35, very clearly you're discriminating against the over 35 category.
> If most of founders they invest in are white, does it mean they discriminate against asians, blacks etc.?
Again, if 30% of applicants are not-white and you accept 2% of them, when generalized success rate is 10%, yes it would again be pretty clear you're discriminating against the non-white category.
> Once again, what proves discrimination?
More sealioning. When a group of people intentionally select for or against a certain group, as is evidenced by patterns of behavior over long periods of time.
> If equal amounts of over 35 and under 35 applicants, and consistently YoY you're taking 90% under 35 ...
Could this scenario happen because of anything else besides discrimination from YC?
Could this scenario happen because of anything else besides discrimination from YC?
It's like any stats question. Depends entirely on your sample. With a reasonably sized sample, no, it really couldn't. Also this is more sealioning.
Let's both stop spamming this board. I will leave you with this.
Assume we have a huge sample data.
And assume "Equal amounts of over 35 and under 35 applicants, and consistently YoY you're taking 90% under 35"
Would you bet everything that you have on YC being discriminatory (I assume you would because you said "With a reasonably sized sample, no, it really couldn't.")?
Could it be, maybe, just maybe, that people under 35 are more likely to produce more value on average and that's why investors choose them?
Have a good day.
Assume we have a huge sample data.
And assume "Equal amounts of over 35 and under 35 applicants, and consistently YoY you're taking 90% under 35"
Would you bet everything that you have on YC being discriminatory (I assume you would because you said "With a reasonably sized sample, no, it really couldn't.")?
Could it be, maybe, just maybe, that people under 35 are more likely to produce more value on average and that's why investors choose them?
Have a good day.
IMO they had enough evidence to provide an implication, and so that's what we have. The implication. The ammunition comes from the fact that YC asks for your age very early in the process. Either that piece of information is relevant and worth asking... or it's not. That YC asks implies they want the info.
But personally I don't think that's enough ammo to start a large forum discussion.
But personally I don't think that's enough ammo to start a large forum discussion.
I think it's a fair question to ask.
The author also brings up the difficulty in finding a job in the industry as he gets older. There are a number of people on here that have witnessed similar age-related or suspected age-related issues in this industry, to the point that this issue seems to be a common discussion point [1]. It would be different if they were writing a major editorial hit piece without hard facts. Perhaps this question will lead to YC releasing diversity stats and the reasoning behind the age question.
1. https://moguldom.com/9158/coding-while-old-race-and-sex-aren...
The author also brings up the difficulty in finding a job in the industry as he gets older. There are a number of people on here that have witnessed similar age-related or suspected age-related issues in this industry, to the point that this issue seems to be a common discussion point [1]. It would be different if they were writing a major editorial hit piece without hard facts. Perhaps this question will lead to YC releasing diversity stats and the reasoning behind the age question.
1. https://moguldom.com/9158/coding-while-old-race-and-sex-aren...
Why is this post getting so many upvotes? "Age discrimination" - based on what?!
If I am a vegan and get constantly rejected by YC, should I create a post: "Done with YC: They hate vegans"?
I expect much better from HN. What the hell.
If I am a vegan and get constantly rejected by YC, should I create a post: "Done with YC: They hate vegans"?
I expect much better from HN. What the hell.
I find it interesting. You can try your vegan post. Sounds a bit dull but go for it.
Of course it sounds dull for you, it's not relating to you. This post, of course is. You are afraid of getting old / being old, so these kind of posts makes you emotional. Makes you click that upvote button. Even though it has absolutely no evidence. Aren't we all so easily manipulated by our emotions?
It's getting upvotes because indignation + sensationalism always gets the most upvotes (this is the weakness of the upvoting system [1]), plus the meta aspect is a force multiplier. Also age discrimination is a perennially hot topic here.
It's also getting a lot of flags, which is why the post is not on HN's front page. Just in case anyone is wondering, there's no moderation penalty on it. The tug of war between upvotes and flags is the cycle of life on HN [2]. It's quite normal for a sensational post to get a rapid sugar rush of upvotes, followed by other users flagging it once they see (and don't want to see) it on the front page.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
It's also getting a lot of flags, which is why the post is not on HN's front page. Just in case anyone is wondering, there's no moderation penalty on it. The tug of war between upvotes and flags is the cycle of life on HN [2]. It's quite normal for a sensational post to get a rapid sugar rush of upvotes, followed by other users flagging it once they see (and don't want to see) it on the front page.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Pretty interesting that a YC person would come out and label this "indignation + sensationalism".
It is neither. It's someone (me) sharing an experience and a personal decision while --if you actually read my post-- praising YC for all the good they do.
My only intent is to perhaps shed some light on the plight of older engineers in the technology ecosystem.
Change the subject if you want. I could not care less. How about "Done with YC: A personal perspective".
Frankly, I find your comment insulting.
It is neither. It's someone (me) sharing an experience and a personal decision while --if you actually read my post-- praising YC for all the good they do.
My only intent is to perhaps shed some light on the plight of older engineers in the technology ecosystem.
Change the subject if you want. I could not care less. How about "Done with YC: A personal perspective".
Frankly, I find your comment insulting.
Just a reminder. The title of your post is: "Done with YC: Age Discrimination"
And no part of that implies any emotion or sentiment at all. What you are reading into is is your own bias.
It almost like a title:subtitle structure. You read the content to understand it. The title simply says something like "I am no longer interested in YC. I want to discuss age discrimination". It does not say "Those f--ker at YC are biggoted blah, blah who discriminate against older engineers and because of that I've had enough and I am done with them". That's what you and dang seem to want to read into it. Well, you are both wrong. It's just a title. No emotion or implications being made other than those made in the mind of the reader.
Judging a book by the cover, are we?
It almost like a title:subtitle structure. You read the content to understand it. The title simply says something like "I am no longer interested in YC. I want to discuss age discrimination". It does not say "Those f--ker at YC are biggoted blah, blah who discriminate against older engineers and because of that I've had enough and I am done with them". That's what you and dang seem to want to read into it. Well, you are both wrong. It's just a title. No emotion or implications being made other than those made in the mind of the reader.
Judging a book by the cover, are we?
I certainly didn't mean anything personal by it! The title alone was enough to count as that. If you hadn't put "Done with YC" and "Age discrimination" in your title, I doubt it would have gotten nearly as much attention. That's the way these things work.
I appreciated the nuances in the body of the text, but those have much less influence, the internet being what it is.
I appreciated the nuances in the body of the text, but those have much less influence, the internet being what it is.
The YC application requires you to list your age, it does not ask if you are vegan. I think it's completely legitimate to ask why age is explicitly included in the application process. I also think it's an interesting discussion whether it is okay that things like requiring relocation unintentionally bias against age (I think it is okay, but it's an interesting discussion nonetheless).
I'll grant you that the title is total click bait, and I don't think it's likely the OP specifically was rejected due to ageism. But I don't think that was his main point.
I'll grant you that the title is total click bait, and I don't think it's likely the OP specifically was rejected due to ageism. But I don't think that was his main point.
I absolutely agree with you, it's a nice conversation to be had. But this post wasn't about "why age is explicitly included in the application process".
The conversation in the thread is quite interesting and thoughtful I think. And it's relevant to everyone since we are all getting older.
To me, it is pretty clear that YC favors the young and narrowly focused. The advice in startup school, while excellent and evergreen, certainly seems geared toward early career people in its content. YC representatives have said again and again that they are looking for people without families, with low personal burn rates (live like college students), the flexible personal relationships to move to SF and work nonstop(no family), absolutely hungry to prove themselves, who are wicked smart and motivated, but not yet wise enough to say no to an incredibly risky bet where the downsides are all one-sided. The avoiding of solo founders I think has a lot to do with the typical applicant's age and experience as well.
YC's inferred goal is to launch young founders who would otherwise be ignored or not taken seriously (and perhaps end up with a financial advantage for discovering a diamond in the rough). You are already in orbit. Keep at it and good luck!
YC's inferred goal is to launch young founders who would otherwise be ignored or not taken seriously (and perhaps end up with a financial advantage for discovering a diamond in the rough). You are already in orbit. Keep at it and good luck!
This is 100% true - but that is their business model. And I cannot call it age discrimination since they are VC not an employer.
Older founders are more likely to make a profitable business (lifestyle business) but less likely to create a unicorn type hot start up. In other words, if one is experienced then one can make profitable business (lifestyle business) even if the idea is bad.
Older founders are more likely to make a profitable business (lifestyle business) but less likely to create a unicorn type hot start up. In other words, if one is experienced then one can make profitable business (lifestyle business) even if the idea is bad.
One thing that stood out to me is that you've applied 3 or 4 times as a solo founder, while acknowledging that YC prefers teams to solo founders. The reason they give for this preference is that "one-person startups are tough and you're more likely to succeed with a cofounder," which seems reasonable to me.
Have you tried in earnest to find others to apply with you? If not, why not? This may be the single most important thing you can do to improve your odds of being accepted.
If you have tried to find cofounders, but haven't convinced anyone, this may also be worth looking into. It's hard to say without knowing any details, but it's possible that YC may be passing for similar reasons as potential cofounders are.
Have you tried in earnest to find others to apply with you? If not, why not? This may be the single most important thing you can do to improve your odds of being accepted.
If you have tried to find cofounders, but haven't convinced anyone, this may also be worth looking into. It's hard to say without knowing any details, but it's possible that YC may be passing for similar reasons as potential cofounders are.
I don't need cofounders. Anyone who is married knows just how tough that can be.
The primary reason for which cofounders are useful with a young team is because entrepreneurship is horribly difficult and 20-somethings are not necessarily equipped to deal with this reality. In this context, having more people on the boat makes it less likely that one person absolutely imploding will implode the startup.
I don't have this problem. I have taken stress in business that would cause most people to jump off a bridge or in front of a train.
It's a lot easier for me to hire the help I might need rather than get into a situation where you open yourself up for cofounder strife that can damage the business. Like I said, had it been not for the 2009 economic implosion I would have had a pretty sizable exit for a business I self-funded started and ran from my garage for a couple of years. I did all of the electrical, mechanical, software and optical engineering on the first product. And, when it was done, I packed it all up and flew to Europe to sell it (it just so happened that the first industry conference that year was in Europe). I then built an international sales network consisting of a dozen resellers and got sales going. I did not hire another engineer to help me until I was out of the garage, about two years after launch. I eventually hired assistants, web designer and assembly people as we transitioned from a garage-based outsourced business to manufacturing in house. I setup and ran my own surface mount assembly line as well as CNC shop.
I think it is important to understand why cofounders are important for the younger demographic. I don't see this as a negative, BTW, it is definitely a good idea for YC to favor multi-founder teams given their younger demographic. It is impossible for a 20-something to have the depth and breath of experience as well as the business chops and thick skin someone like me can develop over decades.
The primary reason for which cofounders are useful with a young team is because entrepreneurship is horribly difficult and 20-somethings are not necessarily equipped to deal with this reality. In this context, having more people on the boat makes it less likely that one person absolutely imploding will implode the startup.
I don't have this problem. I have taken stress in business that would cause most people to jump off a bridge or in front of a train.
It's a lot easier for me to hire the help I might need rather than get into a situation where you open yourself up for cofounder strife that can damage the business. Like I said, had it been not for the 2009 economic implosion I would have had a pretty sizable exit for a business I self-funded started and ran from my garage for a couple of years. I did all of the electrical, mechanical, software and optical engineering on the first product. And, when it was done, I packed it all up and flew to Europe to sell it (it just so happened that the first industry conference that year was in Europe). I then built an international sales network consisting of a dozen resellers and got sales going. I did not hire another engineer to help me until I was out of the garage, about two years after launch. I eventually hired assistants, web designer and assembly people as we transitioned from a garage-based outsourced business to manufacturing in house. I setup and ran my own surface mount assembly line as well as CNC shop.
I think it is important to understand why cofounders are important for the younger demographic. I don't see this as a negative, BTW, it is definitely a good idea for YC to favor multi-founder teams given their younger demographic. It is impossible for a 20-something to have the depth and breath of experience as well as the business chops and thick skin someone like me can develop over decades.
Very much agreed with this. I've seen just as many startups blown up by founder drama as I have by a single overworked founder. And like you say, I think the value prop of multiple founders ships from postive to negative as the founder age increases.
That being said, YC has a very clear and vocal preference for multiple founders, which comes back to maybe YC isn't the right choice for you.
That being said, YC has a very clear and vocal preference for multiple founders, which comes back to maybe YC isn't the right choice for you.
I cannot strongly enough discourage you from trying to do YC solo (been there, done that, obviously do not regret it - but would do it differently 2x).
> I signed-up for and graduated from Startup School. We applied for YC and were not accepted. I continued with Startup School for a second term. Applied again. Nothing. We likely applied about three times, if not four. I honestly don't remember. This included pivots. I wasn't trying to do the same thing and expect different results
If you've applied with the same company, and that company's trajectory hasn't changed between the applications then that's pretty valuable heuristic that it's likely not right for YC. YC's model requires power law style returns. Massive, mega, huge 1/500 hits. Your company could grow substantially. It could 10x - that's not enough. YC needs 10,000x returns and momentum/trajectory/team is really the only material information available to them.
Once you've been around for a while, all of sudden it's no longer unknown what your trajectory will be - you have one that you have to bend. And that's a super valuable heuristic for any investor. If the company really has hit an inflection point during the period you were applying, well that's YC's loss (of which there are many, and of course there will be many more).
> I signed-up for and graduated from Startup School. We applied for YC and were not accepted. I continued with Startup School for a second term. Applied again. Nothing. We likely applied about three times, if not four. I honestly don't remember. This included pivots. I wasn't trying to do the same thing and expect different results
If you've applied with the same company, and that company's trajectory hasn't changed between the applications then that's pretty valuable heuristic that it's likely not right for YC. YC's model requires power law style returns. Massive, mega, huge 1/500 hits. Your company could grow substantially. It could 10x - that's not enough. YC needs 10,000x returns and momentum/trajectory/team is really the only material information available to them.
Once you've been around for a while, all of sudden it's no longer unknown what your trajectory will be - you have one that you have to bend. And that's a super valuable heuristic for any investor. If the company really has hit an inflection point during the period you were applying, well that's YC's loss (of which there are many, and of course there will be many more).
IIRC after entering your name, "How old are you ?" was the first question on YC's original application, even before asking what you are working on.
It was out in the open back then but perhaps it was removed because it is less relevant now. A 50 year old applicant today would likely had likely been hacking on a computer as young child and YC is getting older too so the culture differences are less significant today.
But if I had to guess you have a 10X better chance getting into YC as a 50+ with co-founders than as a 30 year old solo founder. I am always surprised any VC will fund a solo-founder.
Personally I had applied numerous times to YC as a solo-founder. But as soon as I had co-founders I was invited for an interview. I was 45 at the time and no one cared.
It was out in the open back then but perhaps it was removed because it is less relevant now. A 50 year old applicant today would likely had likely been hacking on a computer as young child and YC is getting older too so the culture differences are less significant today.
But if I had to guess you have a 10X better chance getting into YC as a 50+ with co-founders than as a 30 year old solo founder. I am always surprised any VC will fund a solo-founder.
Personally I had applied numerous times to YC as a solo-founder. But as soon as I had co-founders I was invited for an interview. I was 45 at the time and no one cared.
I have a partially completed YC application — Once I came across the (required) age field I simply decided to not go any further.
I appreciate that YC are upfront about age being important because it tells me two things: (1) I shouldn't waste my time and (2) YC's morals are not in alignment with mine anyhow.
Regarding the latter: It's not a huge deal - I can understand why they do it. Screening based on age is just not something I would be comfortable doing.
But hey, it's not my money after all.
I appreciate that YC are upfront about age being important because it tells me two things: (1) I shouldn't waste my time and (2) YC's morals are not in alignment with mine anyhow.
Regarding the latter: It's not a huge deal - I can understand why they do it. Screening based on age is just not something I would be comfortable doing.
But hey, it's not my money after all.
Good point. At least they make it obvious that they will discriminate based on your age, or why do they ask? They aren’t creating marketing lists.
I wonder if startups that get accepted into the program are also advised to bias toward younger new hires as well. Seems consistent with the acceptance criteria of the program.
I wonder if startups that get accepted into the program are also advised to bias toward younger new hires as well. Seems consistent with the acceptance criteria of the program.
Technology startups have a mandatory narrative of "someone young, cool, smart and with a great idea...".
Anyone past 38 (if I remember correctly PG wrote 38 is the cut off date for founders) is too old for said narrative. (BTW: I´m 43)
Maybe you should game the system and match with a young and cool co-founder that does the PR part.
Anyone past 38 (if I remember correctly PG wrote 38 is the cut off date for founders) is too old for said narrative. (BTW: I´m 43)
Maybe you should game the system and match with a young and cool co-founder that does the PR part.
Shoot - I've never been very good at the "cool" part. Wish they taught a class on coolness in school. Would have helped a lot.
The video chat or video clip easily leads to age discrimination. This is widespread in the tech industry. I had a team of three, aged 50+, lined up to apply for a grant for a crypto project. When I saw requirement for video recording of team, I knew it was not worth any more effort. It was not a video Q&A, it was a recorded video statement for the application.
Of course it is racist eerrrr age-ist
A friend of mine, my age, had problem landing interviews. When he did the an uncomfortable pattern emerged. He did very well until the video interview. After that, crickets, no calls at all. In one case he had no less than five phone (no video) interviews as he moved through the hiring funnel in this company. Code interviews, business interviews, etc. He was even told he was a great candidate. After the video interview, not even one smoke signal. Nothing.
After months of frustration he decided to dye his hair to make it far less gray. He didn't like to do that at all, but he felt he has no choice. Not long after that he told me the difference in treatment was so obvious it just floored him. His video interviews led to follow-up interviews and he finally landed a job.
After months of frustration he decided to dye his hair to make it far less gray. He didn't like to do that at all, but he felt he has no choice. Not long after that he told me the difference in treatment was so obvious it just floored him. His video interviews led to follow-up interviews and he finally landed a job.
Have you tried to find a cofounder?
What feedback have you received from any such attempts?
What feedback have you received from any such attempts?
You would probably benefit a great deal from finding some co-founders. I think the age discrimination, while possibly true, is far outweighed by you being a solo-founder.
Having a combo of younger / older co-founder composition could actually be a comparative advantage if you do it right probably.
Having a combo of younger / older co-founder composition could actually be a comparative advantage if you do it right probably.
I am now 58. I consider myself a highly accomplished multidisciplinary engineer as well as a capable business operator.
To lend a bit of context, I have hardware orbiting the planet right now. I also helped design hardware going to the moon in the next few years. I self-funded, grew and ran a startup that almost had an exit in the tens of millions of dollars before the 2009 economic implosion took us out. After that I wrote apps for the iPhone, I designed hardware for the motion picture industry, I manufactured custom technical furniture, built data centers and even entered the aerospace industry to help one of the most well-known companies in the segment get people to the International Space Station.
Throughout this I became very interested in the VC world. I have always self funded, mostly out of a desire to just get going. YC seemed to be above the fray, above some of the nonsense I experienced (I participated in at least one incubator program that ended on an ugly note).
I signed-up for and graduated from Startup School. We applied for YC and were not accepted. I continued with Startup School for a second term. Applied again. Nothing. We likely applied about three times, if not four. I honestly don't remember. This included pivots. I wasn't trying to do the same thing and expect different results. The only thing that remained constant was me, a solo 50-something founder.
I, of course, realize YC has to choose from among tens of thousands of applications. I am not here to suggest I was wronged. I am not entitled to anything and YC owes me nothing at all.
I think age discrimination is an ugly unresolved reality in the world of technology. As I have gone in and out of entrepreneurship I had periods of time during which I said to myself "just get a job for a few years".
When I was younger this was easy. I could get a job within days or a couple of weeks. As I got older it became very obviously harder, even through I became a better engineer, with vastly more knowledge and experience spanning a range of disciplines and fields of study.
My conclusion was reached after looking at YC age data, reading through related threads and, in general terms, watching my own path in and out of various technology sectors over the last decade or so.
My feeling is that the YC process includes several elements that, when combined, might result in unintentional discrimination against older founders:
- Asking for your age rather than "Are you 18 or older?" - Asking for a personal video where you see the applicant - An established bias against solo founders - Younger people evaluating the applications - A physical relocation requirement
I am not suggesting YC evaluators are explicitly biased. There is such a thing as unconscious bias. We know and understand this in the racial domain.
Completing the survey made me think about whether YC was worth the effort for me. My conclusion was that, while I can deal with rejection just fine (sales will teach you this reality), I am not interested in a scenario where my age becomes a disadvantage --even if not explicitly so. It feels like YC, as a 58 year old solo founder, is an exercise in futility or, perhaps more kindly, an not an optimal path.
Once again, please take this as constructive criticism and, perhaps, as a reason for introspection rather than an attack on YC. I think YC is a fantastic resource and one that has allowed many who would otherwise not have the opportunity, to create and launch some of the most amazing companies in the world. YC is, in many ways, a gift to the world of technology. I just don't think it is for older founders, and, in particular, solo older founders.