In my mind -- who gives a damn. Either ycom is for you or it isn't.
You know what's important about it? Ycom gives young people with ideas but no track record an opportunity to prove themselves. Outside of SV, it's very difficult for most young entrep. working in technology to find people/ecosphere, much less investors, who can relate...
If you think ycom's "rate of failure" is a jeopardy to your idea... you're likely drinking wayyyyy to much of your own kool-aid. You're not an entrepreneur if you're focused on failure.
(upvoted the parent; although I don't agree it's a reasonable point that deserves an answer)
Firstly the data is interesting in it own right, and secondly it's useful for people considering where to get seed funding from.
The value of YC (and others) isn't in the money they provide (I suspect most YC funded startups could easily have got the money from other sources), it's in the expertise and connections they provides. When picking an investor you can either go on "gut" feeling about the extra value the investor provides, or you can look at hard data.
I agree that the data is interesting* and I apologize for over-reacting. I also agree with your second paragraph completely.
*Performance metrics for many of these early stage startup funds are skewed by the quality they attract. Ycom and TechStars have the creme of the crop, I expect to see better results overtime... 3 companies from S09 raised >$1M. And as you know, the rate of failure in startups is also naturally high - there are far too many factors involved that my decision would be less guided by metrics and moreso toward your second point.
I'm actually doing a similar analysis of UK universities for a non-profit I help run (http://quofoundation.org) and see the exact same issue. With universities you can get around the problem by adjusting for entry grades. I wonder if something similar would be possible in this situation.
quite shocked this was down-voted to the ground. i wish people would express themselves outside of pressing a button.
maybe it was just me but i thought the tone of the blog post was negative, or perhaps it was just because he opened by stating ycom lacked transparency and it came off accusatory.
furthermore, i understand the importance of performance metrics but I always felt like ycom's purpose was more altruistic than just being about the return. (i'm a realist, i understand bills need to be paid and money to reinvest, but yeah...)
Partly I was playing devil's advocate, I think YC do a great job overall (although I do think a little more transparency on failures would be good for everyone), but it is a criticism I've heard repeatedly.
As I do point out in my conclusion YC do look like they do much better than angel investors and provide real "extra value".
You know what's important about it? Ycom gives young people with ideas but no track record an opportunity to prove themselves. Outside of SV, it's very difficult for most young entrep. working in technology to find people/ecosphere, much less investors, who can relate...
If you think ycom's "rate of failure" is a jeopardy to your idea... you're likely drinking wayyyyy to much of your own kool-aid. You're not an entrepreneur if you're focused on failure.