Good college +2
Done with schooling +3
Single Founder -5
No Hackers on Team -4
Mention Lisp +2
Mention Smalltalk +2
Mention Python +1
Zero Hackers Willing to Relocate -5
Past or Recent TechCrunch Coverage +2
Past or Recent Mainstream Coverage +2
Google search finds many top blogs or major news sources linking to current or past project +3
Team of hackers previously founded a web startup +1
Team of non-hackers previously founded a web startup +2
Not drinking age -3
Average age 23 to 26 +4
Average age 30 to 35 -1
Average age 36 to 45 -2
Average age older than 45 -10
Knows idea should be a web app +3
Short and sweet application +3
Estimated scores for some companies at the time of application: Xobni 12 (MIT hackers), Auctomatic 13 (No hackers at time of application), Justin.tv 25 (Lots of pluses, no negations)
I'd say at 10 you have a good chance at an interview, at 13-15 an excellent chance. This is derived from Paul's writings, speeches, videos, and comments.
The actual idea doesn't matter because Paul will either tell you he likes it or recommend changing it during the interview. If you're not done with college, now is the time to say you will focus on the project instead.
Again, this is just a rough guide and I have zero qualifications to even write this. After the interview, only your execution matters.
Being a motivated high achiever probably correlates well with going to a good college, and with getting into YC.
Even if YC doesn't give "real" points to graduates/students of good universities, just the mere emotional response to reading "harvard" or "yale" or "berkeley" sparks an automatically positive regard for the applicant. Isn't that enough cause?
Thus, good college = +2.
"Between the volume of people we judge and the rapid, unequivocal test that's applied to our choices, Y Combinator has been an unprecedented opportunity for learning how to pick winners. One of the most surprising things we've learned is how little it matters where people went to college.
I thought I'd already been cured of caring about that. There's nothing like going to grad school at Harvard to cure you of any illusions you might have about the average Harvard undergrad. And yet Y Combinator showed us we were still overestimating people who'd been to elite colleges. We'd interview people from MIT or Harvard or Stanford and sometimes find ourselves thinking: they must be smarter than they seem. It took us a few iterations to learn to trust our senses.
Practically everyone thinks that someone who went to MIT or Harvard or Stanford must be smart. Even people who hate you for it believe it.
But when you think about what it means to have gone to an elite college, how could this be true? We're talking about a decision made by admissions officers--basically, HR people--based on a cursory examination of a huge pile of depressingly similar applications submitted by seventeen year olds. And what do they have to go on? An easily gamed standardized test; a short essay telling you what the kid thinks you want to hear; an interview with a random alum; a high school record that's largely an index of obedience. Who would rely on such a test?"
college = 0
"And yet Y Combinator showed us we were still overestimating people who'd been to elite colleges."
Paul "still overestimates" such students, so they're more likely to get an interview. And since he used the word "still", it means he feels he's still biased at this present time. How do you think these test cases came about, anyway?
"college = 0"
I doubt that this can ever be true. Paul still asks for the students' colleges. In other words, he's still figuring this out. What he means is, nobody needs to have a degree or a good college to create a successful startup. That is true. But I do think there are good signs about a person that uniquely pre-qualify them if the student is from a good college:
1) The fact that the school accepted them, matters least (like Paul says in the quote above.)
2) However, I do think Paul considers it a sign of dedication if a student from MIT wants to leave or delay entry in favor of YC, or if they've recently graduated from Harvard or Stanford and instead of proceeding to graduate school or possibly a six-figure job, to spend a couple of years living on ramen noodles.
3) Regardless of what Paul thinks, VC's probably love that stuff, if the startup doesn't have lots of traction yet.
The big VC investments seems to go to those from elite schools: MIT (no product when selected by YC, 4m VC before product was finalized), Cambridge (no product when selected by YC, 400k VC), Yale (no product when selected by YC, unknown VC money), Stanford (likely no product when selected by YC, Sequoia Capital VC).
4) I suggested good colleges would get +2, not just elite colleges.
Does Mashable count? :p
In order to maximise this you need to
a) have a good idea b) have a good team c) be able to execute
I believe this should be sufficient to 'game' the system ;)