We're sorry to say we couldn't accept your proposal for funding. Please don't take it personally. The applications we receive get better every funding cycle, and since there's a limit on the number of startups we can interview in person, we had to turn away a lot of genuinely promising groups.
Another reason you shouldn't take this personally is that we know we make lots of mistakes. It's alarming how often the last group to make it over the threshold for interviews ends up being one that we fund. That means there are surely other good groups that fall just below the threshold and that we miss even interviewing.
http://ycombinator.com/whynot.html
We're trying to get better at this, but the hard limit on the number of interviews means it's practically certain that groups we rejected will go on to create successful startups. If you do, we'd appreciate it if you'd send us an email telling us about it; we want to learn from our mistakes.
Y Combinator Team
When I get a rejection letter for anything, I shrug and treat it like losing a raffle. I don't sweat it, the ticket candidate selection process is not based on merit, it's based on randomness.
- Damien Katz (creator of CouchDB) was also rejected[1]. He went on and got $2 million from Redpoint Ventures [2]
- On this video[3], Jessica Livingston interviews Drew. It shows that he was also rejected the first time he tried out YC.
- The oscar of rejected but finally accepted: I got into YC after applying six times [4]
- Peteris Krumins also got rejected with his browserling idea, got rejected[5], and went on to raise his own seed funding[6].
[1] http://damienkatz.net/2006/11/how_not_to_pitc.html
[2] http://damienkatz.net/2009/12/relaxed_inc.html
[3] http://ycombinator.posterous.com/dropbox-interview-now-onlin...
[4] http://iamwil.posterous.com/i-got-into-yc-after-applying-six...
[5] http://www.catonmat.net/blog/launching-browserling/
[6] http://www.catonmat.net/blog/how-i-raised-money-for-browserl...
Where could I read more about this?
The 'dead sea effect' is caused by this phenomenon: http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-d...
Hiring managers get the technical competency part right but they completely miss the most important things: work-ethic, tenacity, responsibility, team skills, organizational and planning ability, cultural fit, and decision-making. When you hire based on qualities that have no relevance (as all companies everywhere do), you might as well get some monkeys to throw darts on the wall. it'll speed up the process! http://www.adlerconcepts.com/resources/column/newsletter/ran...
Sure, some mistakes will get made - but a company's success factors are rarely as simple as their three-word description.
My impression was that if you were "good", and jumped through all the hoops in filling out the app (which are substantial), you're likely to get in.
With YC, it's probably an easier application, but you're not as likely to get in even if you're good. Good team AND existing traction AND communicate well is about as likely to get into YC as good team alone is to get into something like Startup Chile?
Cheers!
A little like writing to the girl/guy that rejected you with great news that you've landed in Hollywood. By the time you get there they will know it.
Anyway, by "successful" what do they mean anyway?
Someone else funded you? (go to crunchbase).
Or you've gone public?
Or you've sold the business?
Or you're on the front of the WSJ?
Isn't the info they are looking for in all the obvious places? Patronizing to suggest "tell us about your success" as if they can't go to the trouble to uncover it themselves somehow.
After reviewing 2000+ applications, do you really expect them, upon seeing a TechCrunch post 2 years later to remember that was one of their applicants?
You can trust that they really do mean they'd like to know about it, and if I know them, they'd actually go look up the application to see if there is any way they can avoid missing that opportunity in the future.
The idea can change but people's names don't change.
"upon seeing a TechCrunch post 2 years later "
The definition of "success" in your mind?
My impression from talking with various YC partners at the Open House / Startup School was that the ones most qualified to evaluate my application have not seen it. But at the scale YC is operating now this sort of thing seems inevitable.
Moral of the story: never put all eggs in one basket, have Plan B, C, D, E ... ZZZ, preferably around being able to fund yourself with revenue, while still scaling your product business.
Just like us :)
Anyone who think they got jibbed because of supposedly amazing creds should congratulate YC that the applicant pool is so strong that so many other applicants are at least equal in ability.
Anyway, like Zuck said at Startup School - just go F'ing build it and prove them wrong if you can - it's so damn cheap to put out an MVP these days. I know we will continue our experiments and move methodically through our own process of trying to build a viable business, regardless of YC's opinion. I am pretty sure this is what pg would encourage as well.
Since I applying for this round YC, we came up with new amazing idea. I agree that our first time application was poor, it was just an idea without working beta. I'm sure that we should increase our efficiency, it doesn't mean that should work harder. Just more efficiency!
