4 ms·
It'd be unfair to great startups in the experiment batch -- not that it's pg's job to make life fair for people, but it'd put a big dent in YC's reputation. Wh
by jbooth 13y ago
It'd be unfair to great startups in the experiment batch -- not that it's pg's job to make life fair for people, but it'd put a big dent in YC's reputation. Why spend time flying out there if there's a chance your interview doesn't even matter?
- nwhitehead 13y agoYou could also accept groups with good interviews in the experiment batch, but not include them in the experiment.
- jbooth 13y agoBut then they're effectively excluding the best-interviewing groups from the random experiment.
- jayd16 13y agoCan't you pick the best interviews, then hold your experiment with random groups as long as you mix in a the data from the interview groups in such a way to build a representative sample?
- hotpockets 13y agoYou can still do a pretty similar experiment. For instance, startups 1-50 get into yc like normal. Startups 51-100, together with 50 randomly selected startups get grouped together and tagged as "the bubble group". Meaning that they were on the bubble of getting into yc. Pretty high honors. However, they don't get any access, consultation, etc. to yc itself. Then after a few months you unblind which were highly selected and which were random, to see who does better.
- baddox 13y agoWe would only be able to conclude that it's unfair for "great start ups" if the experiment showed that random acceptances performed worse than the interview process.