[brlewis]

What makes this inspiring is the extent to which it really is analytical; it's based on his accumulated experience with startups. Someone known for careful thinking is stating that for 90% of startups that look good based on an application and a single interview, success is only a matter of determination.

[nostrademons]

It makes sense when you think about it. The yCombinator application weeds out people who are unintelligent; the interview weeds out people who are inflexible. So anyone who gets into the program is bound to be both intelligent and flexible.

What can go wrong with startups? You can work on the problem wrong, which is hopefully averted by smarts. Or you can work on the wrong problem, which is averted by flexibility and subjecting yourself to reality checks. If you've got both of those elements, the only thing that can really go wrong is that you give up before you hit upon an idea that's useful.

[vlad]

" It makes sense when you think about it. The yCombinator application weeds out people who are unintelligent; the interview weeds out people who are inflexible. So anyone who gets into the program is bound to be both intelligent and flexible. "

That statement is self-serving, so, whether it is true or not, it stands that there must be a better way to express what you're saying (and without speaking for YCombinator, as well.) Right now it runs the danger of scaring off a lot of applicants.

No specific college, degree, or major can define someone as a great, dedicated, productive, and fervent entrepreneur or hacker in the consumer application space.

Secondly, YCombinator isn't a one-hour Intelligence Quotient test, but a commitment far-and-above graduate school or work at any college or enterprise. The last thing Paul would want to do is 'weed out' the 'weed' who are not from great schools or 'intelligent.'

Thirdly, you're implying two things: that Paul interviews all intelligent people as of primary concern, and those who are not interviewed are therefore unintelligent.

Both of those deductions do not fit what Paul has said in the past.

It's true that every founder from YCombinator has been smart, and has at least been accepted, if not graduated from, a good, famous college. And yet, that's not what Paul states he looks for in any of his speeches, essays, or posts. In fact, he has said things in conflict to your ideas in all of those media.

I think the best way to put this is that YCombinator picks those applicants who offered a better 'package deal' than those who would be later rejected. It might be two MIT guys with experience. It could be two european guys from Cambridge with little programming experience but with a good background in a similar venture.

There are Olympians who win Gold medals in Olympic Games who have to match that performance along with others _just to qualify for the event only 4 or 8 years later._ I just watched a segment on TV about that two hours ago. I don't think it's wise to pretend there are only so many intelligent people (or good candidates) out there, that one should rest on one's laurels.

[nostrademons]

There's a difference between "Everyone who gets into yCombinator is smart" and "Everyone who doesn't get into yCombinator is not". The former is true as far as I've observed; I don't have a whole lot to go on, but I've met a couple YC applicants at startup gatherings and frequent the sites of a few more, and they all seem like sharp cookies. I never claimed the latter. There are bound to be smart people that don't get into YC. (At least, I hope so, since I've been rejected twice and have no affiliation wit yCombinator besides posting on news.YC.)

[vlad]

Yeah, it makes sense that you didn't mean that. I got stuck on the line that said "The YCombinator application weeds out people who are unintelligent"--which of course clearly implies that 90% of the applicants are NOT smart, unless they got to the interview stage--but the second paragraph has a great message.

Of course YCombinator founders are smart. That's why I said so. I haven't met a stupid one. But it doesn't mean that they were the only smart people, or that stupid people make bad entrepreneurs, or that a great way to judge how smart someone is is by their degree, or that a great way to predict success in the consumer app space is how 'smart' someone is. All of those assumptions go against what is preached time and time again by both Pauls, Max Levchin, and others.

And I still disagree that, based on Paul's application, essays, interviews, and speeches, that YCombinator's main filter is how smart the team is. The order is likely 1) how famous the company already is, 2) whether the team is incorporated already, 3) whether the team is bigger than one person, 4) followed by how dedicated the team is, 5) and, how smart it is. (But it's the same kind of speculation as anyone else's.)

Please let me know what you think, because I respect your opinion.

[vlad]

(It says you already replied 12 mins ago but I just finished editing my response, so you might want to get the update.)

[SwellJoe]

Very astute summary, nos.

And it's actually been proven true by one of the YC companies that was in WFP 07 (I'm sure it's been true of others, too...pg mentions Wufoo in the essay). Paul McKellar's first run was SocialMoth.com which is fun as hell to use and crazy sticky...but got no traction and no investment. Next came Overhear.us. Also fun to use, but no traction and no investment. Then came the Facebook SocialMoth, which exploded...now he's a mini-mogul with a bunch of Facebook apps in development, and real revenues from those users. Is he rich yet? Probably not. But he's found a niche that is paying and growing rapidly, because he stubbornly kept iterating and evolving.