Elite Credentials in Startups

Dude just go look at the founders at ycombinator, huge percentage went to top schools. They only interview them for 10 minutes. Without some kind of proof of being able to run a startup (MVP and traction), capital is allocated based on education.

Most investors, IMO, are not great evaluators of founders (e.g., are easily fooled by elite credentials)The theory is that if someone doesn't have elite credentials, he doesn't have the hustle to stitch a business together amid adversity. I'd generally agree that it's much harder to launch a successful business than it is to get into Stanford. The latter is not at all hard if you (or, more accurately, your parents) know how to go about it.Two fallacies are that (

The barriers are not high at Y Combinator. Most of the people we invest in are not from fancy schools. A Harvard degree suggests 3 good qualities in a founder: at least medium-smart, fairly ambitious, and won't be intimidated by VCs with Stanford degrees. But there are lots of other things I see in founder biographies that suggest the same qualities, so impressive academic credentials are by no means required.

Having graduated Harvard myself with substantial student loans and no parental financial support, and knowing many others like myself, I think your generalization is off the mark. I would look at a different advantage, which is social capital rather than financial capital. VCs and other relevant players in the tech ecosystem also come from the same schools. If there is an advantagr, I think it is more likely through that network than that the entrepreneurs were rich enough to have a financial sa

Not sure about that.https://news.crunchbase.com/startups/google-stanford-and-the...

Is this how it always is and has been in Silicon Valley or Tech in the US. Startups started by well connected or well off kids, with backgrounds at elite Universities. Background and connections count for so much in that industry, it makes you wonder how much has been lost or how much potential was lost because people didnt go to the right schools.

There are a lot of legitimate criticisms to be made of YC and of VCs in general (please do not take this as me going "there is nothing wrong in the VC world at all", because I absolutely do not believe that!), but I don't think excessive academic elitism is one of them. If anything, I think they're quite a bit better about avoiding that elitism than the average you'll find among organizations of comparable wealth and power (compare top law firms, leadership of more tradi

What I am seeing is that among Harvard/Stanford grads, being the CEO of a venture backed startup is the highest status. Some of them hate technology and view programming as "low class". But they still go into it, so when they see their peers its something to brag about. They may even stretch the runway as far as possible to maintain the status.YC is just another brand they can add. It was so odd for me when I first realized this is how it works. And the investors are often just

Even YC is designed that way, they fund people that can get into MIT or stanford or harvard maybe? Others with great records are rarely accepted, this is a known fact

Many luminaries including Peter Thiel have been saying this but I see a little bit of a contradiction while comparing their statements to their backgrounds. Peter Thiel, for example, went to Stanford undergrad and law school. Chris Dixon has an MA from Columbia. PG has a PhD from Harvard etc...I'm also wondering if the reverse is happening in the startup world where investors see you unfavorably if you're not a 19 year old college dropout but instead have an advanced degree. In addition, like th