So let's apply this to the new style of pre-seed stage starting funding. If Y Combinator is Harvard, then Techstars is like Cornell. Lightspeed and Highland are MIT and Caltech.
There's not many options for rejected startups, except getting lucky with an angel or your state's entrepreneurial resources.
Those are some huge exceptions you list! I think there are more options for startups today than ever before.
I am excited at the idea of getting into YC. But it does scare me a bit for the crowd that thinks you must have YC to get rolling on your startup. Fact is, most greats(be it MS, Apple, Google) all built a somewhat great product before getting any outside help.
Great point. In fact, founders should really try to avoid taking investor capital if at all possible (YC is the exception for me since you get so much more). Ideally you should strive to have your CUSTOMERS provide the capital you need for growth! ;)
I'm a student. For me to be able to launch a start up right now, I need outside capital for living expenses. Otherwise, I need to graduate and work for a year to save enough to bootstrap myself.
There's nothing wrong with graduating and working for a year (or two, or five) to save up capital. If you pick a good employer - like another startup - you'll earn much more than money. You'll have someone who's just as accomplished as PG teach you, except they'll pay you for the privilege instead of you giving them equity. You'll face all the same pitfalls as the yCombinator founders, and learn nearly as much. You'll learn all the little tricks and skills that everyone in industry knows but they never bother to teach in university.
In reality, this can still be a dangerous path. Just ask my buddies who had these plans and then experienced a life changing event such as having children or getting married. It will be many years before you will again have the freedom that you have now.
Become more creative and find a way around 'em. May be you need to build a prototype good enough to get you through to one of these programs? And if none of these programs accept you, may be you need to reconsider your idea? Or may be if you still genuinely believe in the idea, go around finding a cofounder on campus who can bring with him some $$$s(trust me, they exist, their parents are usually lawyers or into real estate:) There are plenty of options...just because some are more difficult than others is no excuse to not pursue them.
If you are DEAD SET on building something, you WILL find a way around these problems because they are pretty small in the bigger scheme of things.
I know people who were dead-set on ideas, put everything they had into it and literally lost everything. There are many places/situations where time, funding, and cofounders are vastly less available.
Lets look at it in reverse: why do so incredibly few people execute the most obvious, high potential startup plans? Because there are innumerable costs that those who are already at the top have lost their ability to accurately consider.
No, but I suggested it's different. I personally don't see Lightspeed/Highland as much worse than YC, they just attract a very different sort of entrepreneur. If you're capable of succeeding with Y Combinator you would be able to succeed with Lightspeed too.
I guess I could have made the metaphor the other way around, but something about the VCs made me think it worked better with them as the tech schools.
I was sorta kidding above, but to actually be real on the topic, MIT is home of the hackers, and Harvard's got the business-minded folks. I would've picked the other way around. But then the numbers mismatch (1 VC, 2 hacker schools).
Also, just to clarify, the running joke (never really tested) at MIT is that Harvard kids would for the most part die here.
There's not many options for rejected startups, except getting lucky with an angel or your state's entrepreneurial resources.