[radley]

I'm now 44, was 39.

To see if the myths held up. Age was talked about a little at dinners, but the consensus was that it didn't matter.

UPDATE: to be clear, it was agreed that being older had some advantages like experience & maturity. Being older wasn't automatically considered "bad" as the myth usually goes.

[stcredzero]

> To see if the myths held up. Age was talked about a little at dinners, but the consensus was that it didn't matter.

Oh really? Shortly after I got to the Bay Area, I met a 20-something YC kid who looked straight at me and said that my age was going to be a problem. (In the context of the Bay Area, not YC, to be fair.)

[salimmadjd]

That's great. I can tell you my personal reaction and another co-founder when we saw the age question in YC application. We didn't like seeing it there.

[jfoster]

Is that because you don't believe that age could possibly be a factor in likelihood of success for a startup, or because you believe that even if it can be a good signal that investors should ignore it on principle? I think if you look at this from an investor's point of view, it makes complete sense. It's definitely not fair, but in a way that's part and parcel of starting a venture.

[stcredzero]

> It's definitely not fair, but in a way that's part and parcel of starting a venture.

In which sense do you find it, "unfair, but part and parcel?"

Is it not fair in the sense that physical attractiveness and gender is an "unfair" factor when hiring Hooter's wait staff? Or rather, is it "unfair" in the sense of hiring a receptionist or a graphic designer? (Where looks aren't explicitly in the job description, but where exceptional attractiveness could be a potent and favorable signal for the company.) Or is it "unfair" in the sense of it being a factor in hiring a machinist?

Can you explain the "part and parcel" part?

[jfoster]

Part and parcel in that when you start a venture you expose yourself to decisions that businesses or consumers make to buy or not buy whatever it is that you're selling. So there's a risk that it might not go so well. The VC business model is such that they depend on at least some of their investments paying off. If they measure that age is a factor that affects the likelihood of an investment paying off, should they use it?

I don't have a strong opinion on this. I'm just trying to determine which part people have a problem with. The two objections that I can think of are: 1. Not believing that age could be a factor affecting the likelihood of a venture. 2. Believing that even if age is a factor affecting the likelihood of a venture, VCs shouldn't use it.

[stcredzero]

I specifically asked you for your thinking and your experience. Either you didn't catch that, or you're unwilling to answer.

[jfoster]

I can't see any reason why age wouldn't be useful information for a VC. As for refusing to use age as a signal on principle, I'm not sure that it helps anyone. At the end of the day that means that time, effort, and money are being invested into companies that VCs could've known would have a lower likelihood of success.