I summarize Y Combinator’s selection criteria as: “Young, Smart, Cheap, Determined, Acquirable”.
Smart, cheap, and determined, yes. Young doesn't matter except insofar as it helps cheap (and sometimes determined).
The point about being "acquirable" suggests a misunderstanding of how startups work. Startups almost invariably take one of 3 routes: (a) failure, (b) acquisition, or (c) IPO. Every one that takes (c) gets acquisition offers along the way, but turns them down. So "acquirable" simply reduces to "succesful." Which of course investors want.
And once you have that in the list, the entire list simplifies to "successful."
Young was just correlated with being cheap (I'm 27 with 2 kids and a mortgage. 5 years ago I was cheap but definitely not now). Also I remember you wrote that you wanted to test the lower bound of how old a startup founder could be. Your interest in undergrads was unusual when you started (maybe not so unusual now due to your success).
I chose acquirable as opposed to profitable because of the emphasis on creating great technology and great products, and worrying about monetizing and business plans later. Having a profitable business acquire you frees you from worrying about it at all. Being profitable doesn't hurt, but you've said over and over again that if you have a product that users love, you can find a way to make money.
With respect, many startups simply persist, some profitably, some at breakeven. Many founders would rather be in control than wealthy (or working for someone else). Doubtless you screen out folks who favor control over wealth so you don't see them. It's taken me a long time to understand that while every founder "wants to grow" many don't want to grow beyond where they can still be in charge.
Many startups become small businesses. Some are called "the living dead" operating at break-even. There are a variety of reasons. One can be that the founders are comfortable with the current size. See http://www.investorhome.com/vc.htm for an example breakdown of outcomes from VC investment:
"VC firms typically manage multiple funds formed over intervals of several years. Funds are illiquid but as companies in the portfolio go public or are sold, the investors realize their returns. Funds typically consist of limited partnerships invested in a number of companies. A general rule for the breakdown of returns among VC company investments is 40% will be complete losses, 30% will be "living dead," with the remaining 30% generating substantial returns on the original investment. The big winners yield 10 or more times the original investment."
Smart, cheap, and determined, yes. Young doesn't matter except insofar as it helps cheap (and sometimes determined).
The point about being "acquirable" suggests a misunderstanding of how startups work. Startups almost invariably take one of 3 routes: (a) failure, (b) acquisition, or (c) IPO. Every one that takes (c) gets acquisition offers along the way, but turns them down. So "acquirable" simply reduces to "succesful." Which of course investors want.
And once you have that in the list, the entire list simplifies to "successful."