I love the point that you don't need an incubator to start a company. I see many people who are only interested in starting a company if they get funded by YC.
I think it's a bit harder to tell people you're working on your own company full-time if you aren't funded and you aren't in an incubator program. The incubator program lets other people know that investors believe in your idea, so you'll be more confident in telling people about it.
But really, if you want to start a company, you shouldn't need the investor to have your back. You should be able to believe in yourself and your idea no matter what people think otherwise you'll never succeed.
I am in no way saying that's all you get from YC. I'm just saying that I disagree with a pretty common opinion that you starting a company without being funded by YC (or etc.) is ridiculous.
I agree. When I started working on the idea that would become my company, I never intended to try to raise capital, etc.
I ended up applying to YC because I saw value in those three months that I'm not receiving in my current situation.
It matters not if I get in (besides maybe a slight ego bruise if I don't.) because I'm going to keep going anyway. Also, I tell people that I'm working full time on the idea, even though I'm not currently making any revenue. People always react weirdly when that (monetary) information comes out, so I typically don't bring it up.
Changing credit cards that frequently is bad for your credit, which often costs you more in the long term (e.g. if you ever buy a house). So I'm not sure that's the example you should give-it can come across as pretty short-sighted.
I keep the credit cards open, I just don't use them and phase them out slowly over time. I'm very diligent with it, and because I use them often and never miss a payment my credit is quite good. Admittedly though this was simply the first answer that came to mind.
Oh good, sounds like you know what you're doing! Hopefully you keep making small payments, e.g. $5 monthly fees on each card. If you leave a card unused for a long time that can lead to some nastiness and a sudden drop in your credit score later. The reason is basically that accounts with much higher credit lines than they actually use are high risk because they have a small chance of a major default.
Source: I used to work in a credit cards division at a major bank.
What do most banks consider "a long time" to be? I have a number of cards that I rotate usage on. I may go as long as 3 months before charging something on it.
Credit histories go as far back as 7 years, so in terms of 3 and 6 months, it is a relatively short time. This is also why it is a challenge for many young adults to receive fair credit scores.
Also, you should at least be charging one thing per credit card so they are still remaining active.
As dumb as it may sound, it is actually better for your credit score if you have around $5-$10 on your statement on any given month which achieves a higher credit score vs. paying it off entirely. This is illogical because most smart people just set it up for auto pay and pay it off entirely. Hope that helps.
I'm working on a credit scoring related project and would be curious if you know what your credit score is? Any chance you'd be willing to post scores from CreditKarma.com and Creditsesame.com?
I'm curious to see if this strategy is sustainable.
Former analyst here who specialized in rewards credit cards. Changing cards or opening moderate numbers of new credit lines will have little to no impact on your credit score if done reasonably.
Your bank's scoring methodologies were probably better than mine. We raised flags if someone's available credit spiked, or if they closed cards, or if they kept a card open without making any purchases on it for several months.
I don't believe that showing the application reviewers what they you think they want to see (where it does not line up with what you intend to do) is "hacking";
Creating higher visibility doesn't quite seem like "hacking the application process." Of course, it's a bit of a ploy, but no more so than any advertisement has ever been.
I think there's a disturbing trend in our society towards trying to get something that's competitive by "hacking" it or cheating on it somehow. Either that or working insanely hard at the expense of your personal life and personal health. It ultimately leads to a raising of the standard so that only those people can really get what they want.
"Hacking" the Y-Combinator application is an example of that. Suppose some people figure out how to hack it so that they can give the reviewers exactly what they want. Well, then the other people who aren't hacking it in that way are at a disadvantage. Then they have to hack too or be left in the dust. And it becomes this sort of arms race where the original point gets left in the dust.
The same example is true of taking adderall to study for tests. In high school, I didn't take adderall, but I know a lot of kids who did and they would remember information a lot better and score above what they should have been. So if there was some kid who was objectively a worse student than me and he was getting the same grades as me, we both look the same. If everybody started doing it, I'd be left behind or pushed into a lower bracket by virtue of being the only person who didn't do it - who wasn't willing to risk my health (I think, don't know too much about it) for a higher grade. I don't think this will happen, but there are a lot of other examples:
-Doping in bicycling
-Working an insane amount of hours on your startup/job
-Spending months/years studying for the GMAT to get into business school
-Corruption or lying in politics
-Autotuning in the music industry
-High school kids taking all these leadership roles and such things that they don't really care about to try to show passion and get into Harvard. Same for grad school applications.
Are there any good examples of someone "hacking" the YCombinator application? The only one that comes to mind is where the founder of Instacart demonstrated that his service worked by ordering a beer for Garry. And that's not even close to anything on your list.
Preface: I have no personal experience with Y combinator. I've never applied, I've never interviewed, I don't know anything about it, etc.
However, I'm guessing that this discussion and this article in general are giving way too little credit to the interviewers at Y combinator. I think this is a classic survivorship bias here, where the people who "hack" the application and get in are probably the loudest people proclaiming what they did, so people assume that their "hacking" of the application is what got them in. I suspect however, that their "hacking" was a useful data point, but it was just part of the whole picture that resulted in the decision made by the people at Y combinator. The partners at Y combinator weren't born yesterday and I have no doubt see right through any transparent attempts to curry their favor.
However, I agree with the conclusion of the article. You don't need to be in Y combinator to have a successful business. Just focus on doing what you do and don't worry about other people.
I didn't at all mean to say the interviewers aren't able to see through it. They're all incredibly smart people, and after reading 1000's of applications I'm sure they can tell who is trying to game it and who isn't. As for the rest of the post I agree with what you're saying.
Doing some kind of tedious thing that you don't want to do in order to get an advantage in the future is kind of a good attribute isn't it? That's a fair summary of some of the papers I took as an undergrad anyway.
The whole fake leadership thing that goes on in high school is pretty weak seeming other than this aspect in my opinion otherwise.
It seems that most comments here (and the post itself) are conflating "Hacking" with "Cheating".
Cheating would be something similar to placing your name on the interview list, bypassing the need for an application.
Hacking is figuring out the rules to the system and using them to your advantage.
Examples from other posts:
"Taking Adderall"
Taking Adderall is hacking your biochemistry. Taking it to misrepresent your abilities to potential employers is cheating.*
*unless there are proven long term benefits to Adderall?
"Doping"
Doping is hacking your biochemistry. Using it to win a biking race is cheating if the rules prohibit it.
"Spending years studying for the GMAT"
That's just studying. There is no hacking, and no cheating going on here. Hacking would be finding a way to remember more about the GMAT in less time. Cheating would be using a cheat sheet.
"Autotuning"
Autotuning is a vocal effect. It also degrades the quality of your voice. Comparing a trained vocalist with someone using auto-tune is no contest, the trained vocalist will always perform better.
"Creating higher visibility by posting on HN"
This is hacking. The rules of News.YC have been used to garner greater mindshare with the partners that review applications. This is using one process to have an effect on a different process.
In conclusion Hacking is a mentality, Hacking != Cheating even though sometimes one may be an integral part to the other.
I completely agree. You sometimes hear in interviews partners talking about how some companies sometimes convince them of one thing but turn out to not be able to execute on their plans. As in they sound really convincing but don't really know what they're talking about. Of course, what is "hacking"? Most of what founders do to get into YC isn't hacking the application. Writing a good application and getting lots of feedback isn't hacking it.
Asking founders you don't know for recommendations could be but in a negative way but a recommendation isn't easy to get as it's on their back.
If you lie about or fake parts of your application the partners will very quickly pickup on this as they've seen thousands of teams and YC founders who have applied themselves. By the way, this could be considered a trick/hack to attempt to butter-up the reader and instill a level of confidence in the authors credibility.
I don't understand this blog post. It seems to imply that lying on an application for a place like Y Combinator is commonplace, except that the author won't do it, because it's wrong! Does his implication hold? Is it really that bad?
In other news, I decided to not steal candy from little children!
The fact is most people never actually "hack" the interview, it's just a buzzword people use to get their post boosted up higher. Most posts claiming to have "hacked" the application in reality followed best practices and had a compelling case. But admitting that doesn't get upvotes or pageviews.
They are applying. They don't think they will get in. They are setting up the excuse in advance that they aren't willing to try to do anything that looks like cheating to get in, with the subtext that if they wanted to they could do it. And then if they lose they will have planted doubt about the actual qualifications of anyone who did get in. They didn't deserve it, they cheated.
Yeah, right. As has been noted, the interviewers are competent enough to catch obvious BS. If "hacking" the application works, the #1 reason is because the mentality required to attempt that is a positive characteristic in the minds of the interviewers.
Doubt that? These are people who ask on the application, Tell us about the time you most successfully hacked some (non-computer) system to your advantage? They WANT people who try to spot an angle and exploit it. That kind of person tends to be more likely to succeed in a startup. Someone who follows rules because they are there does not. If they notice you trying to find an angle to manipulate them, and you're not obviously sucking while you do it, do you think it goes down as a positive or a negative? Positive, right?
I think people in general focus too much on the superficial components of their application. Pg has debunked many people's theories about what was good/bad about their presentation. Ultimately, it seems like you can do equally well with a conventional or hacker approach, provided you actually have positive qualities they're looking for. Its all in the execution, not in whether you think you're clever
There are a lot of people who say 'hacked' in lieu of normal words for normal day-to-day tasks like 'did,' 'accomplished,' 'wrote a blog post,' 'watched,' 'logged in,' etc. We're apparently a long way past the point where most 'hacks' are actually worth discussing.
"How I hacked airtime by logging on and talking to people"
"How I Hacked My Breakfasts by Switching From Muffins to Crumpets"
"Hacking your toilet routine by using three sheets of toilet paper per wipe!"
Successful business often requires the perception and exploitation of loopholes – market inefficiencies, gaps in regulation, even misunderstood consumer preferences. Coming out on top is aided by a willingness to explore outside the parameters other people impose upon you, if only because it widens the number of options available.
Were I investing, I would find a willingness to adhere to the rules, the letter of the application instructions, or any other enthusiasm for the taking-of-directions to, perhaps, be a negative signal.
A lot of the articles and blogs posts that I have read about "hacking" the YC app aren't really hacks, and they shouldn't be - for the exact reason this article brings out. You don't want to misrepresent yourself, but instead you want to show your best side and what your capable of. If you did xyz to your application to make it better, that's not a hack - That's showing your skill and knowledge of yourself and your product, not to mention it proves that you know how to get attention and make yourself memorable. I read a post earlier about a funny video that was submitted, the one with the accents. That's not a hack. That's explaining your product (And might I add in a damn easy to understand way) and making sure that there's something that the viewer will remember (Like I just remembered it now).
Haha. First you have numerous "how I hacked YC application" submissions when there wasn't absolutely any hacking going on there. And now you have responses how you someone doesn't want to hack it.
There's no any kind of hacking going on there, people.
Honesty is the best hack. If it's coupled with a genuinely good way of solving a big problem, then it's an even better hack. And if it's associated with a team that has accomplished things in the past, viola!
In my application video I look like a crazy-eyed psychopath. I'm ugly as a train crash. English is my 3rd language. My application form was written in 10 minutes and I didn't really review it. There is nothing interesting about me, I'm just like the most. (except the crazy eyes, good lord do I look crazy)
But the product I'm building (IMO) is really cool and profitable.
That said, I think I have the same chances of being accepted than those application form hackers.
44 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 98.8 ms ] threadI think it's a bit harder to tell people you're working on your own company full-time if you aren't funded and you aren't in an incubator program. The incubator program lets other people know that investors believe in your idea, so you'll be more confident in telling people about it.
But really, if you want to start a company, you shouldn't need the investor to have your back. You should be able to believe in yourself and your idea no matter what people think otherwise you'll never succeed.
I am going to build my company no matter what, but YC would offer means to drastically speed it along.
I ended up applying to YC because I saw value in those three months that I'm not receiving in my current situation.
It matters not if I get in (besides maybe a slight ego bruise if I don't.) because I'm going to keep going anyway. Also, I tell people that I'm working full time on the idea, even though I'm not currently making any revenue. People always react weirdly when that (monetary) information comes out, so I typically don't bring it up.
Source: I used to work in a credit cards division at a major bank.
Also, you should at least be charging one thing per credit card so they are still remaining active.
As dumb as it may sound, it is actually better for your credit score if you have around $5-$10 on your statement on any given month which achieves a higher credit score vs. paying it off entirely. This is illogical because most smart people just set it up for auto pay and pay it off entirely. Hope that helps.
I'm curious to see if this strategy is sustainable.
It's lying.
The same example is true of taking adderall to study for tests. In high school, I didn't take adderall, but I know a lot of kids who did and they would remember information a lot better and score above what they should have been. So if there was some kid who was objectively a worse student than me and he was getting the same grades as me, we both look the same. If everybody started doing it, I'd be left behind or pushed into a lower bracket by virtue of being the only person who didn't do it - who wasn't willing to risk my health (I think, don't know too much about it) for a higher grade. I don't think this will happen, but there are a lot of other examples:
-Doping in bicycling
-Working an insane amount of hours on your startup/job
-Spending months/years studying for the GMAT to get into business school
-Corruption or lying in politics
-Autotuning in the music industry
-High school kids taking all these leadership roles and such things that they don't really care about to try to show passion and get into Harvard. Same for grad school applications.
etc. etc.
Also,
> -Autotuning in the music industry
Oh, come on. That's like not giving Tron an Oscar because they cheated their special effects scenes by using computers.
A better musician COULD sing on tune. It is well within human capability. Autotuning is a quick hack to make up for not being able to sing.
I mean, either you learned or not, memorizing some things before the test won't make you better at the thing.
However, I'm guessing that this discussion and this article in general are giving way too little credit to the interviewers at Y combinator. I think this is a classic survivorship bias here, where the people who "hack" the application and get in are probably the loudest people proclaiming what they did, so people assume that their "hacking" of the application is what got them in. I suspect however, that their "hacking" was a useful data point, but it was just part of the whole picture that resulted in the decision made by the people at Y combinator. The partners at Y combinator weren't born yesterday and I have no doubt see right through any transparent attempts to curry their favor.
However, I agree with the conclusion of the article. You don't need to be in Y combinator to have a successful business. Just focus on doing what you do and don't worry about other people.
Cheating would be something similar to placing your name on the interview list, bypassing the need for an application.
Hacking is figuring out the rules to the system and using them to your advantage.
Examples from other posts:
"Taking Adderall"
Taking Adderall is hacking your biochemistry. Taking it to misrepresent your abilities to potential employers is cheating.*
*unless there are proven long term benefits to Adderall?
"Doping"
Doping is hacking your biochemistry. Using it to win a biking race is cheating if the rules prohibit it.
"Spending years studying for the GMAT"
That's just studying. There is no hacking, and no cheating going on here. Hacking would be finding a way to remember more about the GMAT in less time. Cheating would be using a cheat sheet.
"Autotuning"
Autotuning is a vocal effect. It also degrades the quality of your voice. Comparing a trained vocalist with someone using auto-tune is no contest, the trained vocalist will always perform better.
"Creating higher visibility by posting on HN"
This is hacking. The rules of News.YC have been used to garner greater mindshare with the partners that review applications. This is using one process to have an effect on a different process.
In conclusion Hacking is a mentality, Hacking != Cheating even though sometimes one may be an integral part to the other.
Asking founders you don't know for recommendations could be but in a negative way but a recommendation isn't easy to get as it's on their back.
If you lie about or fake parts of your application the partners will very quickly pickup on this as they've seen thousands of teams and YC founders who have applied themselves. By the way, this could be considered a trick/hack to attempt to butter-up the reader and instill a level of confidence in the authors credibility.
In other news, I decided to not steal candy from little children!
They are applying. They don't think they will get in. They are setting up the excuse in advance that they aren't willing to try to do anything that looks like cheating to get in, with the subtext that if they wanted to they could do it. And then if they lose they will have planted doubt about the actual qualifications of anyone who did get in. They didn't deserve it, they cheated.
Yeah, right. As has been noted, the interviewers are competent enough to catch obvious BS. If "hacking" the application works, the #1 reason is because the mentality required to attempt that is a positive characteristic in the minds of the interviewers.
Doubt that? These are people who ask on the application, Tell us about the time you most successfully hacked some (non-computer) system to your advantage? They WANT people who try to spot an angle and exploit it. That kind of person tends to be more likely to succeed in a startup. Someone who follows rules because they are there does not. If they notice you trying to find an angle to manipulate them, and you're not obviously sucking while you do it, do you think it goes down as a positive or a negative? Positive, right?
"How I hacked airtime by logging on and talking to people"
"How I Hacked My Breakfasts by Switching From Muffins to Crumpets"
"Hacking your toilet routine by using three sheets of toilet paper per wipe!"
Were I investing, I would find a willingness to adhere to the rules, the letter of the application instructions, or any other enthusiasm for the taking-of-directions to, perhaps, be a negative signal.
There's no any kind of hacking going on there, people.
At least this one isn't a shameless plug.
And by hack, I mean a smart way of getting noticed, not a deceiving hack.
But the product I'm building (IMO) is really cool and profitable.
That said, I think I have the same chances of being accepted than those application form hackers.
You're presumably trying to start a company. YC is step -1. Treat it as such. It might be the catalyst for your success, or it may not.