Hacker News Reader

Comment by kyro | Hacker News Reader

Given that these more visionary, long-term, scientific startups will often require founders of a different demographic than what we're used to seeing (eg. older, more experienced in a given field, maybe with obligations like a spouse and kids), will you guys modify your approach to evaluating applications, more specifically the founding teams?

View on HN

This presupposes YC discriminated against older founders in the first place.

> older, more experienced in a given field, maybe with obligations like a spouse and kids

I'm not convinced that this describes the Thalmic guys at all.

Sure, there is a subset of science-oriented startups that don't require founders who fit that description, but for many of the industries listed in the article to be disrupted, you'd need doctors, lawyers, researchers, biotech engineers -- ie. seasoned experts who understand the intricacies and harsh realities of their fields -- and many of them would certainly fit my description. I'm assuming that the type of startups they're looking to fund include those that try to "fix" these industries, instead of building a product that sits on the periphery -- eg. a healthcare solution to help streamline the claims process vs. an app for patients to record bowel movements.

> you'd need doctors, lawyers, researchers, biotech engineers

There are lots of these types of people in every recent YC batch.

This isn't like normal tech-transfer. Most of the teams that would be looking for funding on a break-through idea, and can't get it from NIH/NSF aren't going to be seasoned tenured faculty. They're going to be senior graduate students and young post-doc's. They'll know the field, but they will have radical ideas and won't fit in to the academic funding heterodoxy. They'll probably be 25-35.

Really great question...I'm hoping someone chimes in here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com