It surprises me that both the linked post by Guy Morita [1] and this one describe that they not only got detailed feedback, but that in both cases the problem was with the idea. I've always thought the idea was the least important thing, as almost everyone changes their idea, and attributes of the founders such as determination were much more important. Does YC simply limit their feedback to the idea?<p>[1] <a href="http://alchemist.svbtle.com/our-yc-interviews" rel="nofollow">http://alchemist.svbtle.com/our-yc-interviews</a>
<i>told me with a smile on his face that “we Americans love the whole Cambridge thing over here.”, which is funny given that most of Britain seem to hate it.</i><p>Because it's foreign. I think UK attitudes to Cambridge and US attitudes to Ivy League universities are roughly the same.
Two things I notice...<p>1 - The boxing analogy came up again. I'm waiting to hear from a startup that got in that views sessions with their investors as boxing. It just seems like viewing your esteemed funders as combative opponents is the wrong worldview.<p>2 - It seems like the rejection letters now have specific feedback. Is this new?