There's nothing in and of itself on the resume that shows that she's had to work to overcome a default, or has experience building a company, or that she can think on her feet, for example. Although she may in fact possess these skills, I wouldn't take them as a given simply because she has a lot of book smarts.
Means you need people who can actually do shit. If you need people with business experience then a program that connects you with investors makes perfect sense. Investors need people like her. Thus the rejection was a mistake.
> or has experienced building a company
Neither did Google! That's why you partner with investors who have experience. Duh!
> or that she can think on her feet, for example.
Really bad example in this case.
> I wouldn't take them as a given
A given?!? What is a "given" in a venture?!?
You're making the same mistake with "good bet" when you really mean "guarantee".
There are many people on this forum that will be there to help you in the future, but if you catch a name as a person who is a little to sharp to quip with pure emotion, they will have second thoughts.
It's not a big deal, and it's not personal - don't make it so.
Cheers.
Yes, yes it does make her a good bet. If you are betting, bet on people with immense talent and drive.
Who else are you going to bet on, people with far less talent and drive? I think you're confusing "good bet" with "guaranteed to be more successful".
> No selection process is perfect
Yes, but there's a huge gulf between "almost perfect" and "woefully inadequate" when it comes to not being perfect. YC is closer to the latter just due to the lack of time they spend on the process.
> and one data point does not a trend make.
Correct -- but it's one more data point. There are multiple others from reports here. For example, YC not looking at demos; or asking questions that indicate they didn't bother to read or understand the application. Plus when you see some of the schlock they've funded it's clear something's broken.