I bet I've heard 100 startups explain why they failed to raise money, and I don't think I've heard one say that the reason was that their company seemed unpromising. And yet that is almost always the reason in the investors' minds.
-
-
That's also a way to do it. However, given the general distribution of companies who are funded, is there a risk that results could be affected by different attitudes towards risk? Few female-led startups=need to prove good returns and low risk? Others=higher risks acceptable?
-
The other issue here is that VC investment in a company is serial and changes the company's course. So if VC1 invests in an underrep minority's company despite other VCs' bias against, VC1gets a cheap price. But if there is no (or worse) VC2 due to that bias, outcomes suffer.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@PaulG does that approach presuppose that whatever bias might be affecting selection doesn’t also affect subsequent performance?Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@paulg So does YC check to see whether female founders in each batch significantly outperform male founders?Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.