I'm surprised by how many negative reactions there are here. Some people seem almost offended, presumably because we're turning down people with ideas and funding some without.
This really just reinforces the fact that we fund people, not ideas. The way it works in practice is that we work with the founders to find a good idea that will work for them (the idea needs to match the founder). The truth is that most people have good ideas in them, but just don't realize it. We aren't necessarily providing the idea so much as helping them to discover the idea that they already have :)
I think the negativity is a result of hn being a community where what you are is meaningless, it's about what you do. Walking into YC with a nice haircut, suit and the ability to sell yourself doesn't fit the idea most people here have about entrepreneurship.
It makes perfect business sense for you, the reasons you outline are sound and I'm sure it will bring YC a lot of success, but it doesn't fit with what the (average) community member here thinks about entrepreneurship.
That's my understanding of the negativity, could be off the mark but it seems the most logical conclusion.
You underestimate us. The people we accept without an idea most likely have accomplished a lot. They simply don't have an idea that they are excited about, perhaps because they've been focused on accomplishing something else.
Also, I don't think we've ever accepted anyone who wore a suit to interviews.
Why ditch the suits? I love wearing a suit. Why is our industry so adverse to celebrating the art of clothing and in turn the aesthetics of the human form?
Why is it OK to be wearing ill-fitting jeans and an oversized stained t-shirt from a tech conference? Is it thought that if someone is in to dressing well that they've taken time away from learning a new technology or focusing on their product?
Disclaimer: I dress in a somewhat dandyish manner.
And there's nothing even vaguely approaching a hacker uniform is there?
looks around the office at a sea of jeans and t-shirts
The issue with this argument is that almost anything you can say about suits applies to all clothing.
It's no co-incidence that during the dot com boom managers started dressing down. Did that make them better managers than when they wore suits? Or were the good ones still good and the bad ones still bad, they'd just adopted a different uniform?
If you pick on a particular uniform (in this case suits) rather than the concept that uniform matters then you don't solve the problem you just move or hide it.
The thought that someone like Steve Jobs would have been rejected or looked at oddly for wearing a suit is disconcerting.
Clothing is one of those odd and weird things that humanity might just shake out of the culture eventually. It is only of meaning to small minds.
It's like the priest who wears dignified religious clothing while hiding a darker side. Or the executive sporting $3,000 suits while causing financial damage to a nation. Or the clean-cut white kid wearing nice jeans and t-shirts while selling drugs around the corner. Or the cop wearing his uniform while committing a crime. Be careful about using clothing to judge and form opinion.
Now, I happen to think that a nice (not too expensive) suit can look really good. So can a nice pair of jeans and a t-shirt (particularly on a woman that can, shall we say, enhance the garments --call me a pig). I had to wear a suit my entire young life because I was sent to private schools. What this means is that I am just as comfortable in a suit as I am in jeans. I like wearing a suit for the right occasion. But if I have to code for 16 hours straight you are going to find me in sweatpants, and old t-shirt and sandals.
This is funny because I just had a long conversation with a friend about a startup idea. It would turn your smartphone into a beacon that broadcast your profile and your interests to the world, so that you could look around a coffeeshop or whatever and see the people that share the same interests and then have great conversations with them. Then I realized it had already been done, and it's called clothing.
I still think digital "clothing" would be cool, and I get that there's a lot wrong with the way we use clothes to signal today, but anything that adds so much bandwidth to communication between people can't be all bad.
Cool, thanks. It's actually a slightly different idea though, because (as far as I understand it) highlight doesn't signal your interests, it just shows who you're connected to. Maybe more like a class ring than actual clothing?
I'm pretty sure it leverages your interests (pulled from facebook) in some way. FWIW, highlight is one of those ideas that seems great in theory, but I could never see it being a huge success. I just don't have the desire to randomly meet friends of friends that happen to be around me. It seems like it would be an awkward - almost forced - connection. Call me old school, but I much prefer organically developed relationships.
I think a lot of people think the same way, which is why these ___location/social startups haven't caught on more. It seems like the big question is whether their problems are inherent or are actually just software problems. I can imagine a program being eventually developed that's as good or better at making successful introductions than the best salonnière who ever lived. At that point it would be worth the added artificiality (at least to me).
It's simple. To anybody who appreciates the pragmatic of "what works", suits look silly.
Let's break a suit down:
jacket: why? are you cold? there are better garments, made of better material that can keep you warm in a variety of colder than comfortable climates.
vest (optional): why? it makes you look like a poker dealer, but you forgot your green rimmed sunshade.
tie: supposedly to add some color, but looks like a noose, or a lead rope used to guide livestock around (the signal I always get from a tie), may as well just wear a shirt with some color. Predecessors to the tie are generally regarded as silly looking today. Nobody takes an ascot seriously today, bolos look ridiculous, bow ties instantly turn somebody into a fussy professor, and nobody would be caught dead these days in a cravat http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Louis1667...
oxford or similar shirt: oh where to start....buttons, from a time when fabrics couldn't be manufactured with the properties of jersey. Collar, to catch sweat from...all the sweating you're doing from the 3 layers of unnecessary clothing you're wearing. Sleeves, long to be proper, even if it's hot, buttons on the end, because again another vestigial holdover from primitive fabrics, or french cuffs, because who doesn't like to assemble their sleeves when they get dressed? Oh, and it has to be tucked in, leading to constant retucks throughout the day, or embarrassing shirt stays clipped to your socks or looped under your feet looking like some kind of lingerie reject.
Toss out that mess and we're left with ridiculous, overly expensive uncomfortable shoes that need constant maintenance, black socks and what are essentially just expensive slacks.
(edit: I'm frequently caught wearing suits for various work reasons, and I feel like an idiot every time I "suit up")
For starters, shoe laces need to be tied, and they come undone. To use Velcro straps you simply have to press them firmly into place, and they take quite a lot of force to undo improperly.
The fact of the matter is the primary reason most people, by a huge margin, chose laces over Velcro is aesthetics (which Velcro sorely lacks).
Trust me--shoelaces provide a substantially better fit, support, and closure, despite being somewhat harder to use. Shoelaces are also replaceable in case of wear. Also, shoelaces are a standard and one might not be able to find the right shoe with a Velcro closure.
If all shoes were built with those things in mind (like say, boots are), then I might buy that. However in most shoes none of those things seem to be given strong consideration.
There's a whole spectrum of clothing between "suit" and "ill-fitting jeans and an oversized stained t-shirt from a tech conference" that is tasteful, casual and professional.
I'm going to go against conventional hacker wisdom and say that if you are comfortable in a suit, wear a suit. As long as you are also completely comfortable being the only one around in a suit - and that is an open question.
I think part of the problem with hackers wearing suits is that they tend not to be comfortable in them, and they tend not to fit well, so they don't look quite right in them.
Personally, I like to wear nice jeans with nice shoes and a nice dress shirt, all which fit me well. It's somewhere between casual and dressy that's not the standard "business casual," and it's a style of dress I am comfortable in.
It's basically wrong for the same reasons not wearing a suit is wrong at a business meeting - it makes you stand out for something other than your accomplishments. A businessman's uniform is a suit, and a hacker's is a hoodie, and there's not much anyone can do about it in the short run.
If you dress differently because of what other people think then perhaps you're not the rebel hacker you think you are ;) that includes not wearing a suit if you're comfortably in one.
Personally I don't get get why not more people wear suits, you have lots of pockets for your gear, they make dressing well easy (as long as your suits fit you) and effortless. Just go suit and a nice t-shirt to dress semi-casual, so suit up! :)
You're honestly making the argument personal. There's nothing inherently wrong with wearing a suit. If people are content, comfortable and happy wearing what they have, then why bother all of your ad hominem comments. We don't need reminders that the 20th century has created the "cargo pants."
We know that cargo pants exist, but maybe they prefer a suit?
I've acknowledged your point no need to berate everyone down the line as well =/
I think there is nothing wrong with it as long as you are conscious of the image it sends, and are willing to counter the obvious negative stereotypes, namely that you are not a hacker, not part of hacker culture, and therefore incapable of starting a tech startup..... ;-) Of course, low expectations can be made to work to one's advantage.
It's lazy thinking. The whole ethos of casual dress at work was that it didn't matter what you wore, it was about what you did and thought and that we shouldn't make assumptions based on something so superficial.
That's now flipped and become some form of inverted snobbery where the people who objected to being judged on what they were wearing (or not wearing) are now doing exactly the same.
The point isn't that wearing a suit or jeans or whatever is good, bad or indifferent. It's that it doesn't matter.
If it didn't matter what you wore, no one would wear suits. They're either uncomfortable and impractical or incredibly expensive, and sometimes both. The only real reasons to wear a suit involve either social pressure to do so or narcissism.
I think this may say more about your personal circumstances and world view than anything much wider.
I've got suits that aren't uncomfortable and weren't incredibly expensive. As for impractical that depends entirely on your life. I certainly wear them less now I have small children but when I was younger I never found it an issue.
In terms of social pressure, well yes, but that's true of a many many things that we do. If you've ever pulled on a clean pair of jeans to go out and meet a friend rather than the dirty (but still hygienic) pair you'd worn the day before, that's social pressure, when you don't just fart in front of people, that's social pressure.
Are those worse than my occasionally wearing a suit to go out with my wife because it makes her happy because she likes the way I look in it? Or because I've just been feeling a bit schlubby lately and fancy looking smart for the day? Or simply fancy a change?
I say this all as someone who typically wears jeans seven days a week and has casual dress as a significant factor when I choose a job.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it; people do worse things out of social pressure and there are far more obnoxious ways to express narcissism, but I don't see any of your rationales falling outside of those two categories.
Name one reason to wear a band t-shirt other than social pressure or narcissism?
Your argument isn't an argument against suits, it applies to any item of clothing other than the absolutely most basic, utilitarian items. It's an argument against fashion and self expression through clothing of all sorts.
Now if this is what you genuinely believe then that's fine but I hope you're applying the same standards you apply to those wearing suits to people wearing band t-shirts, anything branded where an equivalent non-branded item is available, or frankly anything that has been chosen for any reason at all other than it's absolute functional value.
OK, I wanted to appreciate and support the tailor because I like the idea that people make clothes that are about craftsmanship and skill not just utility.
Or my other clothes were in the wash. Happy now?
Is that not a clear enough example of why your argument isn't just about suits when I can just reuse your answer an it works?
Both of your reasons are circular--one buys a suit to support the manufacture of suits? Buying a shirt to support a band is quite a different thing. And if all your clothes are in the wash except your suit, well why did you own the suit?
You're missing the point, I'm buying the suit to support the designer / tailor, the creator NOT the mass manufacturer. Like you I'm supporting the creative endevour of an individual or group.
In this sense it's a far better reason for a suit than for a band t-shirt. A suit is the primary output of a tailor, a band t-shirt is a commercial by-product of a band. There are better ways to support a band than buying a t-shirt - buying their records or seeing them live for instance. There is no better way to support a tailor.
As for the circular reasoning on its dirty - I agree but it's the same for both suit and band t-shirt. You have to have a reason to own it which I've given you.
How am I missing the point? Whether the suit is made by a tailor or a mass manufacturer, it's still circular reasoning to buy a suit to support the manufacture of suits.
Fashion is a creative industry. If I admire the creativity in that industry and I think that the things that they produce are beautiful examples of design (which you may not agree personally appreciate but I'm guessing that you won't refute the basic premise that fashion is a creative design industry). How am I meant to support them and to encourage and ensure the survival of that industry, other than by buying the things they produce?
Regardless of that owning and wearing a suit because I think it is a beautiful example of clothes design, regardless of whether it supports the creator or not, is a valid thing to do in itself that is neither narcissistic nor an example of social pressure.
And in case you think I'm desperately trying to come up with reasons but that they're not actually things any real person would do, I own only two suits, one of which (by Oswald Boateng) I own precisely for this reason - because I believe it to be a beautiful item (or more precisely two beautiful items) of clothing.
Ah yes--so now we're up to narcissism, social pressure to wear a suit, or an aesthetic appreciation of suits in themselves. I will take you at your word that you wear suits purely to appreciate their beauty in and of themselves, and not in a narcissistic attempt to make yourself more beautiful by nature of being wrapped in such beautiful garments.
I didn't say it was the only reason I did it, that wasn't your question. The reality is few things we do can be ascribed to a single motive, more normally they're a mix of several things. But your question was name a reason which wasn't the two you gave of which this is one. There are others but given how much work it's been just to get you to gracelessly accept that there might be something here I really don't have the strength to talk about any others.
But the problem is still that your argument applies to lost of clothes, not just suits. Shirts are less practical than t-shirts. Buttons are fiddly and unnecessary, collars a pointless throw back to necktie and don't get me started on the practicality of cuffs. Most shoes are sub-optimal from a pure practicality point of view. Ironically many trainers aren't actually good for running because of the way they're balanced.
The problem is that you danced around my point rather than addressing it; perhaps if you had been more direct and to-the-point, you would have the strength to address it more convincingly.
I agree. In Vancouver (slob city) people for the most part don't even dress up to go out. They ask why should I? Here is an answer: Dressing down, ubiquitously known as "being comfortable", says that you don’t care about how you look, as if your appearance were an entirely private matter that has nothing to do with anyone else. It’s the exact opposite: what you wear is part of the visible environment, as relevant as the architecture, the decor, the food on the table, the scents in the air. http://betweenmypeers.com/2007/09/20/why-dress-up-for-social...
I think there is a fair distance between caring how you dress and caring about architecture. For one thing, architecture tends to be more permanent and won't exit the train at the next stop. I don't go into restaurants I don't like and criticize their decor and their food, so I'm not sure why I should care about what others wear.
Style is substance, unless you think that things like user experience are meaningless buzzwords and the command line is the only proper way to interact with the internet.
This is one of the pitfalls that hackers and engineers fall into, yes. But in good user experience, form still follows function, not the other way around. "Form follows function" is simply another way of saying "substance over style".
> I don't think we've ever accepted anyone who wore a suit to interviews.
How about basic hygiene? Is that a no-no, too? "She is clean and doesn't smell. Must be covering for her incompetence." /s
I feel perfectly comfortable working in a T, jeans and sandals, and I pretty much wore a shalvar-jaaf (Kurdish pants) my entire graduate years, but if I am to meet anyone initially in a professional context I will wear a suite (fully aware of the reactionary views of the sub-set that apparently is so focused on surface matters that they would ignore technical competence and make decisions based on the fact that one wore a suite to, say, an interview.)
One of the very best people I've ever hired wore a dark navy 3-piece suit with pristine french cuffs and gold cufflinks, if I remember correctly. The team almost dinged him for that, if not for his amazing technical talent, problem solving skills and eidetic memory.
I'm fine with wearing suits on sales calls in the right contexts, but it's more about wearing what is appropriate. At YC (or really any tech event on the west coast), a suit isn't appropriate -- at most, a button-down shirt w/o tie and MAYBE a jacket in the evenings.
It's kind of obvious when the guy on the other side of the table is wearing shorts and sandals that perhaps a suit and tie is inappropriate...
I can't speak for the US west coast, but it seems to me a good start is to actually know how to wear a suit. It absolutely has to fit correctly and be the right size. Unbutton your jacket when you sit. Tie your tie correctly and tighten and straighten it, top button of your shirt buttoned - OR loose it completely, opening the top button - there is no middle ground.
For me personally, I've always worn suits to interviews, but they haven't been for hacker positions. For me it was to show that I took the application process seriously and I really wanted the position.
I'm in the same city as you and I wear a suit... but only to interviews. Wait, I guess I wore it to my brother's wedding, too, but other than that it stays in the closet.
This is why I'm excited about this experiment - without it we probably wouldn't have been able to apply (though we were going to try anyway).
It's not like my friends and I don't have ideas floating around, it's just that we have no one concrete idea to apply with. I do't think this means we're not good startup material. We have the excitement, it's just not directed towards a very strong idea yet.
I imagine you'd prefer a team that at least has some general market/problem/area in which they have a strong passion, yea?
I know there are some great entrepreneurs that can build great things, but I have a feeling that great entrepreneurs + passion would go a lot further due to their irrational optimism and tenacity in their market/problem/area.
> The people we accept without an idea most likely have accomplished a lot.
I'm taking that to mean, as an engineer, accomplishing a lot would entail building a lot of things? Or at least a few neat things? Even if they're in my spare time for fun, like the cummy OS I'm trying to write or for startup ideas I have that probably won't pan out?
I can't think of anything else because everything about my resume and past is just unimpressive at it's kindest and failure at it's honest.
The more I read comments down the thread, the more I realize you are right. It looks like people are afraid of the idea that YC could evaluate personality. But this concept is quite visible in pg's essays - he often mentioned that good founders have something distinct in themselves. My guess is that YC already did quite a bit of research into that topic, and is just exploring this concept further.
"Walking into YC with a nice haircut, suit and the ability to sell yourself doesn't fit the idea most people here have about entrepreneurship."
I walked into YC looking like an unshaven hobo with a stupid linux t-shirt, and nappy unkept hair. The rest of my team was only slightly less homely. After being accepted into YC, I'm proud to say that I wash my hair but I haven't adopted a suit yet...
Here's what I would worry about. Obviously the YC folks know what they are doing generally and this is an experiment that may fail or may succeed. So this is offered in the spirit of addressing a possible issue. If you haven't thought about it, at least thinking about it may help you avoid it.
What I would worry about would be the fact that there is a difference between being given an idea and turning around a general idea into something new. If you are already in business, and you are going to be successful, turning around an idea you already have into something different is a familiar process and a necessary skill. On the other hand, the question becomes what happens with those who don't have an idea?
I can't speak for the people who will apply, but I know there is a huge difference between the attention I put into working on my own ideas and working on other people's. Ok, these categories aren't mutually exclusive. These aren't really comparable. Even if forced by circumstance into doing a specific thing for a business, it's different than being essentially hired by investors to implement their ideas. Again these aren't mutually exclusive categories or anything, but they represent something I would hope you'd be careful about.
One way to go about this would be to work with such people to find ideas after accepting them.
Being excited about something is important in running a business regardless of its size or scope.
Your response suggests you are aware of this. So maybe all of this just acts as validation that you are on the right path.
The main downside I see is that it will be harder to evaluate teams if they don't have an idea to talk about in the app and interview -- even the idea is totally throwaway.
It doesn't seem like a bad idea, but I think the RFS already fills this need (as long as people know they can apply with an RFS but then do something different)
I agree. If you don't have an idea, on what basis are they judging you? what is their filtering process? If you are in your early twenties, what exactly have you accomplished that would separate you from the herd? Nothing, except which schools you have attended. I'm guessing the main filtering process YC will do is to filter based on which schools you attended, so in that way, YC is basically adopting the recruiting process that investment banks do.
I wonder what % of those YC funds attended the Ivy League or other private u's vs. those who went to state schools?
Assuming the YC guys get about 3000 applications (based on published acceptance rates and class sizes), they can probably either do some a/b tests in the reviewing process, or just substitute extra manual labor to evaluate based on other metrics if something goes wrong. It's not all all-or-nothing single test.
Metrics only get you so far. They don't really tell you why you fail. They only tell you how far you are along your plan to succeed, and whether it is matching expectations.
But if things are failing, they can't tell you why, particularly in an experiment like this. Maybe it is genuinely a bad idea and nothing will make it succeed. Maybe it is a good idea but needs to be gone about differently.
In other words, you can show that you are doing what you think you need to do to be successful, and that you are not being successful, but you can;t show what changes you need to make in order to be successful.
The solutions do require manual labor, but they require creative labor. This area is more art than science.
If I was doing this I would assemble a list of reasons why this experiment will fail up front. I would revisit the lists in a year or so. I would ask which ones played into the problem. I would then ask what could be done about it. But that's me. Others have to find their own ways.
I meant for the application-reviewing process, which has much faster feedback, vs. the "are the applicants qualified" process, which takes waiting at least through the session, and possibly a few more years.
They should be able to tune the app-review and interview process pretty easily, at least to get the same amount of information as from teams with ideas. Figuring out if those teams, if accepted, are markedly different from those who came with existing ideas, that's a much harder problem.
The team that finds their perfect-fitting idea is the team that's going to prosper. Couldn't agree more.
I think the reason that a portion of the public is acting negatively is because they're afraid that these changes will cause YC to become a playground for non-technical cofounders and nutjobs with ideas. I have confidence that the partners won't let this happen. They've already shown their willingness to revert back if it doesn't work out (limited trial run), so I really don't understand why people are pissed.
Perhaps it's just me, but I feel like HN comments overall have gotten significantly more negative in the past few months. I can't recall reading the comments section for any recent startup launch or sale without at least half the commenters tearing it apart, often with almost no information to back it up.
I'm curious -- it looks like there is nowhere on the application form to describe your idea. That is, you're not just letting people apply without an idea, you're stopping them from applying with an idea. Is that intentional?
This is a separate application form for people with no idea. You can still apply with an idea via the regular application form: http://ycombinator.com/apply.html
(There will be a FAQ about this sort of thing, but I wanted to get this launched today and only had 10 minutes to do it in before I had to go to office hours.)
We still prefer that people apply with ideas. All that's new is that we've added an option for people to apply without one. All else equal, a team with a good idea has a much better chance of being accepted than one without.
Granting that startups frequently change direction quickly and radically... I would still evaluate someone who is moving in a direction differently than one who is not. Choice of a direction (including an active decision and specific concrete work on a project) is also a reflection of character (a personal characteristic - not merely ideas).
Paul, it's an image thing. You even put a teaser out there about the next step ("We'll consider single founders too")...
You already said that experience is not necessary. So we are ALREADY at: "Apply with no experience, no idea, no team."
There is only one next logical step. You're still 'buying the man/woman'. The last step is:
"New, apply to YC anonymously, without ever going or revealing who you are. No need to come even if you're accepted, we'll webinar the whole kebab and you can stay behind a skype handle and email."
Paul, I would like to do this! Please allow me to apply anonymously, without ever going or revealing who I am. (Of course, you'll know everything about the resulting company.) You might just be surprised...
I'm not surprised to see this reaction. The folks who react strongly against this announcement have ideas, and think these ideas make them special.
We've all worked with that girl who succeeded at everything she touched. We'd hire her in a heartbeat, for any project, because she figures out how to make it work the best it can. If she's around, we can step back a bit and trust, and the project turns out better than if we'd run it our self.
She's worth way more than the guy who farts great ideas.
As someone with a negative reaction to this idea, I think your characterization is off base. Nor is it a problem of fairness—I don't care who yc accepts nor am I interested in participating in yc.
I have a negative reaction because although I agree with the principle of funding people in general, I'm skeptical of the idea of people who "want to be entrepreneurs" rather than people who become entrepreneurs to achieve something specific. (I've already made one comment to this effect that was downvoted to oblivion.)
It's not that ideas are worthwhile and are what you should get into yc. I am skeptical that a good founder wouldn't be able to come up with scads of potential ways they want to change the world.
I think by definition (and having attended an entrepreneurial program at a fine school, coming from an entrepreneurial family, and having hung around entrepreneurs most of my life) I can't imagine someone who is an entrepreneur not having a zillion ideas that they think of all on their own. To make money that is. The problem with most entrepreneurs is that they have to many ideas. That doesn't mean they are good ideas of course (by the definition of YC).
yes it's the main problem actually.. How to pick the best one between to many ideas to start.. Maybe they can start a program for it, apply with many we help you to choose one..
I am with you 100%, but let me explain what they are thinking: "I have a 6 figure job, a nice home, a luxury car, but she choose this artist without 30 cents in his bank account." The attitude says more about the commentor than the concept they are complaining about.
This really just reinforces the fact that we fund people, not ideas. The way it works in practice is that we work with the founders to find a good idea that will work for them (the idea needs to match the founder). The truth is that most people have good ideas in them, but just don't realize it. We aren't necessarily providing the idea so much as helping them to discover the idea that they already have :)