It became very political. Basically we had 4 major sessions each 3-4 days alternating between Salt Lake City and Houston. At the conclusion of each session, we would rank each company on a set of criteria. The total score would rank each company. However, the last ranking would determine the final winners.
We finished #1 after the first session. However, I soon realized giving feedback (even privately) became rather contentious. People could easily mistake a genuine feedback for a political move to downgrade a company for scoring reasons. As a result, the value of cohort feedback diminished a lot.
The mock board meeting, was probably one of the more valuable things in the program. But the problem was the time with the mock board members was short, these "board" members had very little context about the company (so not very realistic). As a result, you had to spend most of the "board meeting" time educating them about your business before getting into the actual practice of a board meeting.
If you're in a remote location or city, with very little resources, then the program might be somewhat valuable. But if you live in any big cities, especially silicon valley. Then there is no value to it.
YC puts A LOT OF EFFORT to build the community in the right way.