> What about the regular type that doesn't have much to show, but wants to do great things?
People who want to do great things, and who have the right combination of talent and drive to actually do them, have usually done great things already. Perhaps not in the same sphere, and perhaps not as great as they aim in the future, but still great.
If you don't have much to show, why should you expect to be regarded favorably in any competitive endeavor? Evaluating people based on what they have demonstrated is by far the fairest method, and I can't really imagine what you would propose to replace it with.
If you don't have much to show now, you have the opportunity to see to it that you will in a few months. Just because some doors are closed to you now doesn't mean they will be forever.
>> Evaluating people based on what they have demonstrated is by far the fairest method, and I can't really imagine what you would propose to replace it with.
Sounds like a great way to discriminate against those who are brilliant but have not been given the opportunity (through a certain type of upbringing, e.g. race, gender, income, nationality, etc.) to demonstrate it.
I don't have a solution, but I do think that by relying too much on someone's track record, it's easy to miss other types of people who can be equally successful given the chance.
I understand that everyone starts from a different place, and degrees of privilege certainly vary.
However, the ability to create success in the face of failure is a core property of most successful entrepreneurs. People who stand around waiting for someone to "give them a chance" are rarely the ones who materially impact the world.
Edit: lest somebody take the below comment negatively, I'd submit that one doesn't have much to lose by simply applying to YC, so I'm not sure I understand why there'd be any hesitation even by people who are very unlikely to get in.
The evidence by an overwhelming margin indicates that being born into privilege is one of the most significant indicators of future success. In fact, in the world of entrepreneurs, "being given a chance" is hardly necessary for the overwhelming majority of success cases, because by accident of their birth they had such a head start. In fact, most people who "materially impact the world", by a big, big, big margin, were people who were born into privilege.
So I don't think that it's a negative indicator if somebody is particularly skeptical of their chances of getting accepted by YC for not fitting into a certain mold. In fact, it strikes me as being incredibly rational.
That being said, if one doesn't try, one will never know for sure. That doesn't mean one should apply, either, and expect anything if one isn't already wealthy or connected.
Everyone has opportunities, just of different natures.
If, for example, someone had gotten a 3.5 GPA at a state university while working 40 hours a week and caring for an aging parent, I would judge that they had done something extraordinarily impressive. Whereas just the bare 3.5 GPA wouldn't impress me all that much.
People who want to do great things, and who have the right combination of talent and drive to actually do them, have usually done great things already. Perhaps not in the same sphere, and perhaps not as great as they aim in the future, but still great.
If you don't have much to show, why should you expect to be regarded favorably in any competitive endeavor? Evaluating people based on what they have demonstrated is by far the fairest method, and I can't really imagine what you would propose to replace it with.
If you don't have much to show now, you have the opportunity to see to it that you will in a few months. Just because some doors are closed to you now doesn't mean they will be forever.
Good luck to you!