Accelerators intentionally select for startups that fit within the constraints of the accelerator model. Even assuming the founder(s) are smart, disciplined, and competent, many startups do not meet the basic criteria that will allow them to be successful in the accelerator environment. The people that run these accelerators know this and filter accordingly.<p>Two big rejection criteria that many people misunderstand:<p>- Accelerator programs require founders to do more, faster than can be reasonably managed by a single person, hence no sole founders. There is too much work to do without at least two people on the founding team. It is not that you can't successfully build a startup as a sole founder (I am one) but that you are unlikely to successfully execute an accelerator program as one, which is an important distinction.<p>- Simple Web/SaaS applications fit the program timeline of accelerator models. They are not designed for hardcore technology or infrastructure startups that require an enormous amount of heavy lifting on the engineering side in order to have a Minimum Viable Product. These companies often require closer to a year to get off the ground, which is far longer than most accelerator programs run and often have very different customer sales cycles. The kinds of startups that fit within typical accelerator program scope are a small fraction of all startups you could build.<p>If you look at the statistics irrelevant to the constraints of an accelerator program, such as gender balance, you see that the statistics for accepted and rejected startups look similar, which is what you would expect if the selection process was working well.
I've applied twice to an accelerator, both times unsuccessfully. However, it was not due to being female, but instead because I'm a sole founder. It's a bit of a conundrum unfortunately, because I wish to prove myself to my peers before seeking co-founders.<p>As the study only took into account those applications made via the F6S platform, I would not trust the figures. Some founders are unable to use it for a start, as they're insistent on only allowing logins with either Facebook or Linkedin. Not everyone uses or is willing to connect those services, like myself.
This article is a paraphrase of a study it doesn't link to. It links only to the home page of the organization. Does anybody have the url to the original source?<p>HN strongly prefers original sources, as long as they're reasonably readable.