[webwright]

This is another strawman argument. Of course there's cronyism, racism, sexism, ageism, etc. And of course we should discourage that. Was I championing any of those things you're attacking?

I'm going to add some stats to my OP.

[amirmc]

You said "You need to expand your view of meritocracy beyond just product/code. Expanding who you know, how much they like/admire you, and how much they want to work with you is part of meritocracy."

So yes, you may as well be championing gender, race and background, since you've already redefined 'merit' (in a rather perverse way, imho).

Edit: I see others have also commented on this and the Wikipedia link from another comment is interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

[webwright]

Can you point me to a definition of merit that I redefined?

I guess I'll try to say it slightly differently to clarify: "it's worth working to expand who you know, how much they like/admire you and how much they want to work with you". This is a skill you can get better at. It's hard work that you need to do. And yes, sadly, this work is certainly easier if you're a 25 year old white guy who went to Stanford.

Do you think people who have worked to have a deep network of folks to sell to, hire from, get introductions from, etc., have done meritorious work? I'm suggesting that how hard you work on this stuff (and how good you get at it) is part of your merit (in the world of startups/entrepreneurship). I certainly don't think it's the only part.

Given that about half of the top venture backed startups are founded by immigrants, I'd say the startup is more meritocratic than a lot of people seem to think. But I'd agree with you that we have a ways to go.

[philh]

You can't simply say that it's meritorious to work hard at whatever it is that makes one succeed. Otherwise any non-randomised culture is meritocratic. For meritocracy to be a meaningful term, the concept of merit needs to be detached from real-world success.

Which isn't to say that network-building isn't meritorious, but you can't use that particular argument for it.

(It's also not relevant how meritocratic SV culture is in other areas.)

[mlichtenstern]

It is fair to say that the YC experience adds value to the companies that participate - even if only by virtue of screening and vetting companies for investors - although that is clearly not the only benefit. For a company that comes in as an idea, and has no revenue / implicit value, the equity (in exchange for funding and value add) makes sense. Companies are not obliged to apply if they don't see value.