[dzink]

“a less financially capable entrepreneur with an apparently weaker idea and market, versus an alternative that rings all the bells for the majority of VC's”

You are assuming those variables have any correlation whatsoever, and I’d argue they don’t. If YC was to decouple them in their decisions, they would see a lot more returns. If they could provide more info, so VCs could decouple them you would see a new golden age for Silicon Valley. Less financially endowed entrepreneurs who persist nonetheless can have resourcefulness or insights into bottom of the market ideas that can make a huge return with small improvements (Whatsapp). They often lack the wealthy network for similarly less burdened cofounders and investor intro and advantageous information often distributed at top schools with most affluent founder candidates (each top school takes pride in sharing nonpublic insights with their disciples from VC network tips, to the personal preferences of each judge in the supreme court).

YC has the network to beat all advantages provided by pedigreee schooling which means they can venture far beyond Stanford grads and invest in less trite and privilidged ideas that have actual potential to change the world. The founder disadvantages could be mitigated with a standard toolbook and the network. YC could play Moneyball for early stage startups, but they don’t seem to just yet.