What about the control group though? You know, the 50% that were deemed fit for YC after the interview but lost at the coin toss backstage. How did those compare?
What about the control group though? You know, the 50% that were deemed fit for YC after the interview but lost at the coin toss backstage. How did those compare?
Let's say you ranked startups during admission on a 1 to 100 scale, and took the top 20 scoring startups. (I don't know if this is the metric you used, but I imagine the following protocol could be adapted regardless; as long as you kept the data.)
Take the bottom 5 scoring startups that you funded - i.e. the ones that just made it. Now compare their outcomes to the next 5 --- i.e. the top 5 scoring startups that didn't get funded.
If you see a significant difference, that could show that being a part of YC adds tremendous value to a company. On the other hand, this sort of analysis is really hard because the data points are so few, and the noise in the data so high (the volatility is just too much to make meaningful conclusions).
It's still an interesting experiment to run, because there is a chance that being a part of YC adds just such a large amount of value that it still comes out in the data.
This sounds like a good instrumental-variable exercise for finding out whether the YC branding adds a significant amount of value to investors.
EDIT: gabrielroth got it.
/Insert Einsteins's quote about god being dicey