Ok, don't confuse the cases where giving feedback benefits both parties and where it doesn't.

In most selections that draws a "pass or fail" line among applicants, giving feedback benefits neither. I explained the reason in my comment in this tree ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=68895 ). I assume whether you're called back for YC interview or not is this kind.

What I didn't explain is that there are other cases; where "the few stand-outs" compete and ultimately the winner is chosen. If you couldn't win because of your shortcomings (that is, you would've won if you hadn't had them), then you should know what dragged you. But you don't need to worry; in such cases, somebody will tell you the reason you couldn't win. Most likely, in such circumstances, the officials make comments on each candidates. Even if there's no official comments, sombody inside will eventually tell you that you were so close.

Of course anybody who wants to improve himself needs feedback. But when you're in the first kind of selection and can't make it, those who made selection are wrong person to ask feedback.

I guess VCs do become consultant-like, but only once a company is funded. Up until that stage, there may be no point, unless of course the relationship with the entrepreneur is valued enough to do so. As a solution, how about YC offering public feedback to the rejected applicants willing to expose themselves publicly. Also, I am curious to know if scorecards are used.

Also, it would be great to see a YC applicant actually develop a system for the applications themselves making feedback and follow-up easier for YC staff.

So, if systems were in place to handle these types of apply-check-judge-accept/reject-feedback-followup processes better, I'm confident better outcomes could be reached.

Anaphoric's comment (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=68979) such a system could be used by that manager who rejects at random.

whether YC will do something or not is beyond my concern, but as a general remark, could such feedback loop encourage applicants to fit into criteria to pass that particular system instead of their actual goals (building successful startup)?

The same remark can be applied to other fields; recruitment, record companies, auditions to cast a role, men/women relationships, .... what's common here is that, although you can tell success or failure retrospectively, you cannot nail down the systematic criteria beforehand.

Just to jump in here, there's also a measure of agility that is required. Having any sort of formalized system based on criteria assumes by its nature that those criteria are always going to be true. Anybody who's been watching the tech world for more than five years knows that's not true.

Not to mention the issues that come up once the system is changed. If the system is changed next year, and some companies that failed under the old system would pass under the new system, wouldn't that be a huge problem?

You're taking people at the top of their game, with knowledge in the industry and technology, and having them make a fine-tuned judgment call.All this for a dynamically changing business environment. If the decision is of a well-considered and thoughtful nature at all, that's going to be very hard to systematize. The more you formalize it the more you lose your special sauce. There are qualitative scorecard-type solutions, but those by nature are personal opinions and would have to remain proprietary.