Isn't that the definition of a conflict of interest? Or am I reading this wrong?
It is a lot easier to vet someone you have worked with extensively, or if someone you trust gives a recommendation. It isn't like there is some secret society -- it is simply the way the world works.
Those are extra bits of information that go into the equation and they happen to count for a lot. I don't really see a problem with it.
Why wouldn't they give extra weight to those bits of information?
Also, this happens all of the time with positions across the board in startups/companies. If I am a senior engineer somewhere, and we are hiring and the company thinks I have good judgement... of course they are going to take my recommendations of candidates more seriously than someone off the street.
Being a partner at YC is certainly a unique qualifier that would basically guarantee acceptance. There is nothing wrong with that. It is awesome, in fact.
But it still seems kind of strange to be honest.
YC accepted into their program as a founder someone who was a partner. Does that really sound like bias to you? If a former professor at a university applied to be a grad student, would you accuse the university of a conflict of interest?
> You are alleging bias, not a conflict of interest.
I'm not sure I understand the difference.
> YC accepted into their program as a founder someone who was a partner. Does that really sound like bias to you?
Yes, if and only if the decision resulted in another equally strong application being rejected, either directly or indirectly.
> If a former professor at a university applied to be a grad student, would you accuse the university of a conflict of interest?
Perhaps, because the committee that decides whether or not to accept a student consists of professors who likely know the former professor, which will likely introduce bias (positive or negative).
*edit cuz i'm bda at spelling
However, you could make a stretch connection between this and Dick Cheney if you were trying:
1. take a job that allows you to setup infra and policy for a certain type of relationship
2. foster the field for companies to take advantage of said infra and policies
3. leave to work at company to benefit from said setup...
I doubt thats what is going on here - but it has precedence in politics quite often.
The mistake you're making is similar to the one where right-wing conspiracy theorists argue that getting censored by Twitter is a First Amendment violation. It isn't because Twitter is not part of the government.
It is also a private company and can do what it wants in this regard.