told me with a smile on his face that “we Americans love the whole Cambridge thing over here.”, which is funny given that most of Britain seem to hate it.
Because it's foreign. I think UK attitudes to Cambridge and US attitudes to Ivy League universities are roughly the same.
It surprises me that both the linked post by Guy Morita [1] and this one describe that they not only got detailed feedback, but that in both cases the problem was with the idea. I've always thought the idea was the least important thing, as almost everyone changes their idea, and attributes of the founders such as determination were much more important. Does YC simply limit their feedback to the idea?
I got rejected back in 2010 as a solo founder (my cofounder bailed a few days before the interview), and feedback was all about the idea -- not my sudden solo founder status. The idea is really all they have to critique based on the app and interview. They consider founders heavily, but how do you give good feedback on "you guys just didn't blow us away as a founding team"?
Here was my rejection for something close to what Beacon does now (this was pre-startfund money):
> I'm sorry to say we decided not to fund you. There may well be something in the idea of commissioned stories, but it seemed to us that to get such a project rolling it would either have to be a spinoff of an existing site with lots of traffic or be quite highly capitalized (since otherwise there wouldn't be enough "donors" to cover costs). A YC size investment wouldn't be enough, and yet it would be hard to raise enough from post-YC investors, because they'd demand "traction."
I think it has more to do with the fact that if the team doesn't blow away YC (neither of these teams seem to be superlatively amazing), then other factors need to be strong too.
The reasons that they email you are only the reasons they're fine with being public. They don't accept people for tons of other more subtle reasons, not the least of which are the softer skills and character.
1 - The boxing analogy came up again. I'm waiting to hear from a startup that got in that views sessions with their investors as boxing. It just seems like viewing your esteemed funders as combative opponents is the wrong worldview.
2 - It seems like the rejection letters now have specific feedback. Is this new?
The rejection letters at the interview stage have often included detailed feedback. It's rejection in the earlier stage (not getting an interview, based on your application) which doesn't get detailed feedback (usually; I've seen some cases where it did, usually after questions in email).
Thanks! I appreciate the clarification. I recalled reading something which explained why YC doesn't give feedback, and didn't realize it was for just the first stage.
11 comments
[ 7.4 ms ] story [ 48.6 ms ] threadBecause it's foreign. I think UK attitudes to Cambridge and US attitudes to Ivy League universities are roughly the same.
[1] http://alchemist.svbtle.com/our-yc-interviews
Here was my rejection for something close to what Beacon does now (this was pre-startfund money):
> I'm sorry to say we decided not to fund you. There may well be something in the idea of commissioned stories, but it seemed to us that to get such a project rolling it would either have to be a spinoff of an existing site with lots of traffic or be quite highly capitalized (since otherwise there wouldn't be enough "donors" to cover costs). A YC size investment wouldn't be enough, and yet it would be hard to raise enough from post-YC investors, because they'd demand "traction."
1 - The boxing analogy came up again. I'm waiting to hear from a startup that got in that views sessions with their investors as boxing. It just seems like viewing your esteemed funders as combative opponents is the wrong worldview.
2 - It seems like the rejection letters now have specific feedback. Is this new?