Oh really? Shortly after I got to the Bay Area, I met a 20-something YC kid who looked straight at me and said that my age was going to be a problem. (In the context of the Bay Area, not YC, to be fair.)
In which sense do you find it, "unfair, but part and parcel?"
Is it not fair in the sense that physical attractiveness and gender is an "unfair" factor when hiring Hooter's wait staff? Or rather, is it "unfair" in the sense of hiring a receptionist or a graphic designer? (Where looks aren't explicitly in the job description, but where exceptional attractiveness could be a potent and favorable signal for the company.) Or is it "unfair" in the sense of it being a factor in hiring a machinist?
Can you explain the "part and parcel" part?
I don't have a strong opinion on this. I'm just trying to determine which part people have a problem with. The two objections that I can think of are: 1. Not believing that age could be a factor affecting the likelihood of a venture. 2. Believing that even if age is a factor affecting the likelihood of a venture, VCs shouldn't use it.
To see if the myths held up. Age was talked about a little at dinners, but the consensus was that it didn't matter.
UPDATE: to be clear, it was agreed that being older had some advantages like experience & maturity. Being older wasn't automatically considered "bad" as the myth usually goes.