I think there's a disturbing trend in our society towards trying to get something that's competitive by "hacking" it or cheating on it somehow. Either that or working insanely hard at the expense of your personal life and personal health. It ultimately leads to a raising of the standard so that only those people can really get what they want.
"Hacking" the Y-Combinator application is an example of that. Suppose some people figure out how to hack it so that they can give the reviewers exactly what they want. Well, then the other people who aren't hacking it in that way are at a disadvantage. Then they have to hack too or be left in the dust. And it becomes this sort of arms race where the original point gets left in the dust.<p>The same example is true of taking adderall to study for tests. In high school, I didn't take adderall, but I know a lot of kids who did and they would remember information a lot better and score above what they should have been. So if there was some kid who was objectively a worse student than me and he was getting the same grades as me, we both look the same. If everybody started doing it, I'd be left behind or pushed into a lower bracket by virtue of being the only person who <i>didn't</i> do it - who wasn't willing to risk my health (I think, don't know too much about it) for a higher grade. I don't think this will happen, but there are a lot of other examples:<p>-Doping in bicycling<p>-Working an insane amount of hours on your startup/job<p>-Spending months/years studying for the GMAT to get into business school<p>-Corruption or lying in politics<p>-Autotuning in the music industry<p>-High school kids taking all these leadership roles and such things that they don't really care about to try to show passion and get into Harvard. Same for grad school applications.<p>etc. etc.
Preface: I have no personal experience with Y combinator. I've never applied, I've never interviewed, I don't know anything about it, etc.<p>However, I'm guessing that this discussion and this article in general are giving way too little credit to the interviewers at Y combinator. I think this is a classic survivorship bias here, where the people who "hack" the application and get in are probably the loudest people proclaiming what they did, so people assume that their "hacking" of the application is what got them in. I suspect however, that their "hacking" was a useful data point, but it was just part of the whole picture that resulted in the decision made by the people at Y combinator. The partners at Y combinator weren't born yesterday and I have no doubt see right through any transparent attempts to curry their favor.<p>However, I agree with the conclusion of the article. You don't need to be in Y combinator to have a successful business. Just focus on doing what you do and don't worry about other people.
I love the point that you don't <i>need</i> an incubator to start a company. I see many people who are only interested in starting a company if they get funded by YC.<p>I think it's a bit harder to tell people you're working on your own company full-time if you aren't funded and you aren't in an incubator program. The incubator program lets other people know that investors believe in your idea, so you'll be more confident in telling people about it.<p>But really, if you want to start a company, you shouldn't need the investor to have your back. You should be able to believe in yourself and your idea no matter what people think otherwise you'll never succeed.
It seems that most comments here (and the post itself) are conflating "Hacking" with "Cheating".<p>Cheating would be something similar to placing your name on the interview list, bypassing the need for an application.<p>Hacking is figuring out the rules to the system and using them to your advantage.<p>Examples from other posts:<p>"Taking Adderall"<p>Taking Adderall is hacking your biochemistry. Taking it to misrepresent your abilities to potential employers is cheating.*<p>*unless there are proven long term benefits to Adderall?<p>"Doping"<p>Doping is hacking your biochemistry. Using it to win a biking race is cheating if the rules prohibit it.<p>"Spending years studying for the GMAT"<p>That's just studying. There is no hacking, and no cheating going on here. Hacking would be finding a way to remember more about the GMAT in less time. Cheating would be using a cheat sheet.<p>"Autotuning"<p>Autotuning is a vocal effect. It also degrades the quality of your voice. Comparing a trained vocalist with someone using auto-tune is no contest, the trained vocalist will always perform better.<p>"Creating higher visibility by posting on HN"<p>This is hacking. The rules of News.YC have been used to garner greater mindshare with the partners that review applications. This is using one process to have an effect on a different process.<p>In conclusion Hacking is a mentality, Hacking != Cheating even though sometimes one may be an integral part to the other.
There are a lot of people who say 'hacked' in lieu of normal words for normal day-to-day tasks like 'did,' 'accomplished,' 'wrote a blog post,' 'watched,' 'logged in,' etc. We're apparently a long way past the point where most 'hacks' are actually worth discussing.<p>"How I hacked airtime by logging on and talking to people"<p>"How I Hacked My Breakfasts by Switching From Muffins to Crumpets"<p>"Hacking your toilet routine by using three sheets of toilet paper per wipe!"
I don't believe that showing the application reviewers what they you think they want to see (where it does not line up with what you intend to do) is "hacking";<p>It's <i>lying</i>.
Here is the message that I am getting from this.<p>They are applying. They don't think they will get in. They are setting up the excuse in advance that they aren't willing to try to do anything that looks like cheating to get in, with the subtext that <i>if they wanted to</i> they could do it. And then if they lose they will have planted doubt about the actual qualifications of anyone who did get in. They didn't deserve it, they cheated.<p>Yeah, right. As has been noted, the interviewers are competent enough to catch obvious BS. If "hacking" the application works, the #1 reason is because the mentality required to attempt that is a positive characteristic in the minds of the interviewers.<p>Doubt that? These are people who ask on the application, <i>Tell us about the time you most successfully hacked some (non-computer) system to your advantage?</i> They WANT people who try to spot an angle and exploit it. That kind of person tends to be more likely to succeed in a startup. Someone who follows rules because they are there does not. If they notice you trying to find an angle to manipulate them, and you're not obviously sucking while you do it, do you think it goes down as a positive or a negative? Positive, right?
I completely agree. You sometimes hear in interviews partners talking about how some companies sometimes convince them of one thing but turn out to not be able to execute on their plans. As in they sound really convincing but don't really know what they're talking about. Of course, what is "hacking"? Most of what founders do to get into YC isn't hacking the application. Writing a good application and getting lots of feedback isn't hacking it.<p>Asking founders you don't know for recommendations could be but in a negative way but a recommendation isn't easy to get as it's on their back.<p>If you lie about or fake parts of your application the partners will very quickly pickup on this as they've seen thousands of teams and YC founders who have applied themselves. By the way, this could be considered a trick/hack to attempt to butter-up the reader and instill a level of confidence in the authors credibility.
A lot of the articles and blogs posts that I have read about "hacking" the YC app aren't really hacks, and they shouldn't be - for the exact reason this article brings out. You don't want to misrepresent yourself, but instead you want to show your best side and what your capable of. If you did xyz to your application to make it better, that's not a hack - That's showing your skill and knowledge of yourself and your product, not to mention it proves that you know how to get attention and make yourself memorable. I read a post earlier about a funny video that was submitted, the one with the accents. That's not a hack. That's explaining your product (And might I add in a damn easy to understand way) and making sure that there's something that the viewer will remember (Like I just remembered it now).
The fact is most people never actually "hack" the interview, it's just a buzzword people use to get their post boosted up higher. Most posts claiming to have "hacked" the application in reality followed best practices and had a compelling case. But admitting that doesn't get upvotes or pageviews.
Changing credit cards that frequently is bad for your credit, which often costs you more in the long term (e.g. if you ever buy a house). So I'm not sure that's the example you should give-it can come across as pretty short-sighted.
I don't understand this blog post. It seems to imply that lying on an application for a place like Y Combinator is commonplace, except that the author won't do it, because it's <i>wrong</i>! Does his implication hold? Is it really that bad?<p>In other news, I decided to not steal candy from little children!
In my application video I look like a crazy-eyed psychopath. I'm ugly as a train crash. English is my 3rd language. My application form was written in 10 minutes and I didn't really review it. There is nothing interesting about me, I'm just like the most. (except the crazy eyes, good lord do I look crazy)<p>But the product I'm building (IMO) is really cool and profitable.<p>That said, I think I have the same chances of being accepted than those application form hackers.
Haha. First you have numerous "how I hacked YC application" submissions when there wasn't absolutely any hacking going on there. And now you have responses how you someone doesn't want to hack it.<p>There's no any kind of hacking going on there, people.<p>At least this one isn't a shameless plug.
I think it's distressing to think any kind of success in the Y Combinator application process is significant at all.<p>You're presumably trying to start a company. YC is step -1. Treat it as such. It might be the catalyst for your success, or it may not.
Honesty is the best hack. If it's coupled with a genuinely good way of solving a big problem, then it's an even better hack. And if it's associated with a team that has accomplished things in the past, viola!
Annnnd this post is a hack :) If it gets more points and you get up in the queue, then this would turn into a great hack indeed.<p>And by hack, I mean a smart way of getting noticed, not a deceiving hack.
Successful business often requires the perception and exploitation of loopholes – market inefficiencies, gaps in regulation, even misunderstood consumer preferences. Coming out on top is aided by a willingness to explore outside the parameters other people impose upon you, if only because it widens the number of options available.<p>Were I investing, I would find a willingness to adhere to the rules, the letter of the application instructions, or any other enthusiasm for the taking-of-directions to, perhaps, be a negative signal.