3 ms·
Graham's statement about the possible bias of First Round is unfounded. This was not any sort of a real study like Graham thinks and First Round clearly notes t
by in3d 11y ago
Graham's statement about the possible bias of First Round is unfounded. This was not any sort of a real study like Graham thinks and First Round clearly notes that. When the returns are as skewed as they are in venture capital (http://www.sethlevine.com/archives/2014/08/venture-outcomes-are-even-more-skewed-than-you-think.html http://www.sethlevine.com/archives/2014/08/venture-outcomes-...), a small sample size and a simple analysis won't do. First Round even excluded their investment in Uber because it would skew the results too much.
- khed 11y agoEven if it were a statistically appropriate sample size and female founders still out performed male founders it still wouldn't exlcude other likely explanations other than bias. What if the culture in venture capital is more willing to assist and mentor female founders leading to greater success? In academia there is a women are selected over equally qualified men 2:1 for tenure positions now [1]. It is not unreasonable to wonder if a similiar hand up is being given to female founders in terms of training, social network inclusion, and mentorship leading to greater success. Alternatively, there may be a selection process in society that means only the most motivated women become entrepeneurs and so beat the average male entrepeneur. [1]. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/04/08/1418878112.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/04/08/1418878112.abst...
- TomGullen 11y ago> female founders still out performed male founders That's not what the study says, it says groups that have at least 1 female founder, not female founders.