I am really sorry to hear about all of these negative experiences. I feel lucky to have gotten to work with you over the years and seen the positive impact you have had on others in the community and the exciting work you have moved into. I think the community will be losing a really lovely person. I admire both your courage in posting this and that you are prioritizing your well-being right now.
I was sad to hear that our team contributed to your negative experiences though I definitely understand. When I first was introduced to the idea of focusing on top universities, I also felt quite uncomfortable with the implications. I knew so many brilliant people not from those top universities and knew many systemic disadvantages prevent people from attending them.
That being said, I do still endorse this prioritization (though not an exclusive one!). In case it’s useful context, for you or others reading this post, I’ve written some reasons why I think this.
When piloting new forms of support or being limited in the number of universities a small team can give higher touch support to, hard decisions have to be made about which universities get that support.
I believe most of the people who go on to have incredibly impactful careers will come from outside those top universities. That is part of why we set up UGAP—to help provide support and opportunities to promising individuals and groups around the world who might not have the same access and advantages.
However, top universities are the places with the highest concentrations of people who ultimately have a very large influence on the world. Partially that is because of the screening mechanisms of the university and but partially it is because of the built-in benefits and unfair advantages that students receive while they attend those universities. Given that this is the reality we’re working with, I believe we should do our best to leverage the existing system and opportunities at these universities to help get more people into high-impact careers. That often means focusing resources on those universities even though that can be demotivating to others.
Again, just wanted to note that I appreciate you sharing this post and am sorry to hear about your experience. I am wishing you the best.
top universities are the places with the highest concentrations of people who ultimately have a very large influence on the world
I think this as a piece of reasoning represents a major problem in the perceptions of EA. While it might be factually true, there are two problems with relying on it:
It means surrendering ourselves to this existing state as opposed to trying to change it and create a more equal world.
It means the goal of EA community building is regarded as a funnel trying to get individuals into existing positions determined by the system already in place. There is an alternative: building not a pool of individuals, each of which is separately regarded as a marginal talent contribution—but rather a diverse community that could think more robustly about how to change the world for better, and not be mostly confined to rich, white, technological, western perspectives. IMO this alternative is much more important than the funnel.
On the one hand, I am generally sympathetic to the broader concern.
On the other hand, a suggestion that EA should attempt to change certain deep-rooted truths about the way the world works to “create a more equal world” in addition to its object-level workloads wouldn’t score well with me. As a general matter, the development of non-elite American college students is not neglected or cost-effective, so it is not a viable object-level initiative. It’s only viable as a meta project to the extent that it indirectly contributes to object-level success.
I don’t think focusing CEA resources on elite universities is inherently inconsistent with your second point. Maybe I’m showing my age, but back when I was an undergraduate, most student organizations had access to funding through student government, but little in the way of external subsidy or support. Except for modest sums given to newspaper editors and such, students didn’t get paid for leadership. When trips/retreats were subsidized, the subsidies were partial and the trips were generally within a few hours’ driving distance and on a modest budget. In most cases, there were no external organizations helping student leadership out. (I recognize that this setup makes it more difficult for student of modest means. That was my experience as well—my family was low-income enough that even the school concluded my parents could contribute almost nothing to educational expenses.)
Although there was a shift toward concentrating resources on top universities, it seems from a glance at the UGAP program that the resources that are out there for non-top university EA groups still exceed what student groups generally get in the broader world. To be clear, I’m sure the pulling back of support for non-top university groups was difficult for their organizers who had previously received more support, and that the existence of more supported groups at top universities is discouraging for organizers elsewhere. But the existence of more recruiting-focused programs at top universities does not somehow makes EA inaccessible everywhere else. Thus, it is not inconsistent in my view with working toward “a diverse community that could think more robustly about how to change the world for better.”
A few years ago, I started an EA university group in Chile, got funding and support through UGAP, then got advising through 80k and continued mentoring through OSP. This year, I got hired at CEA’s Groups team.
It’s difficult to trace counterfactual impact, but I suspect this wouldn’t have been possible if UGAP hadn’t helped me get a group started, or if CEA wasn’t able to recognize good talent outside top universities.
I’m biased now, but I think people miss how most of our team’s efforts go to scalable support, which doesn’t necessarily target top universities (and includes universities like mine). Selecting top universities is a good heuristic for getting high-quality group members, but you also get diminishing returns fast because you’re bottlenecked by having great organizers at these universities who are in need of support. This, alongside the fact that there is such a thing as great groups outside of top universities, is why we still spend a lot of time, resources, and money on other universities worldwide.
I’m on the one hand happy to hear that the groups team isn’t as elite-focused as I had thought; on the other hand, I’m still troubled by the margin-based reasoning.
Treating each new person as a separate investment and trying to optimize for their marginal utility for EA, instead of looking at the aggregate effect on the movement of all the community building efforts.
Specifically in your comment, justifying diversifying investment in groups by saying “high quality group members” are the goal but top universities have bottlenecks which can’t be easily solved by just pouring more money into them—instead of arguing that it’s better to have a new group in Chile than a new group in Harvard, even if hypothetically people there were less qualified for existing EA jobs.
I’m biased now, but I think people miss how most of our team’s efforts go to scalable support, which doesn’t necessarily target top universities (and includes universities like mine).
Is the portion of efforts that currently do not go to top universities quantifiable, or at least subject to reasonable estimation? I would guess that people who were adversely affected by changes would be more vocal, which could lead to others overestimating the magnitude of those changes on non-top university support.
Hi Jessica! I also was happy to work with you. Thanks for commenting. I want to reiterate that I understood this decision and why it was done, but I can’t say it made me feel good (esp when it happened. Maybe one good way to describe it was it felt CEA had favorite kids). And I’ve gotten lots of private messages after this post voicing out similar sad feelings. As someone who does believe in effective decision-making and impartiality in this, I really just understood and accepted it.
I think in my post I was trying to voice out my feelings of sadness I’ve held in, of different aspects of EA and EA CB. Some people can easily make their emotions in tune with their rationally held beliefs. I’m not exactly like that — so despite understanding why CEA did it, it still made me sad about who I was at that period of time. It didn’t mean I couldn’t get into an Ivy League in the future, but it did mean I wasn’t an Ivy League then (not that I hadn’t thought about it, many factors just made it so that college had to be where I was based in), and that automatically made an invisible barrier between me and my Ivy League colleagues.
I agree with some sentiments of others in this comment section — that it plays to the system, and I guess that’s somewhat the fastest most effective way sometimes. But it does make me sad because it makes me feel that so many people in this theoretical future are bound to the status quo.
I am partially sad that a lot of people seem to be missing the point. It kinda proves the point I was trying to make
For what it’s worth, I sympathise with the need to make some hard prioritisation decisions—that’s what EA is about, after all. Nonetheless, it seems like the choice to focus on top universities has been an insufficiently examined heuristic. After all, the following claim...
top universities are the places with the highest concentrations of people who ultimately have a very large influence on the world.
… is definitely false unless the only categorisation we’re doing of people is ‘the university they go to’. We can subdivide people into any categories we have data on, and while ‘university’ provides a convenient starting point for a young impact-focused organisation, it seems like a now-maturing impact-focused organisation should aspire to do better.
For a simple example, staying focused on universities, most university departments receive their own individual rankings, which are also publicly available (I think the final score for the university is basically some weighted average of these, possibly with some extra factors thrown in).
I’m partially motivated to write this comment because I know of someone who opted to go to the university with the better department for their subject, and has recently found out that, by opting to go to the university with the lower overall ranking, they’re formally downgraded by both immigration departments and EA orgs.
So it seems like EA orgs could do better simply by running a one-off project that pooled departmental rankings and prioritising based on that. It would probably be a reasonably substantial (but low skill) one-off cost with a slight ongoing maintenance cost, but if ‘finding the best future talent’ is so important to EA orgs, it seems worth putting some ongoing effort into doing it better. [ETA—apparently there are some premade rankings that do this!]
This is only one trivial suggestion—I suspect there are many more sources of public data that seem like they could be taken into account to make a fairer and (which IMO is equivalent) more accurate prioritisation system. Since as the OP points out, selecting for the top 100 universities is a form of strong de facto prejudice against people from countries that don’t host one, it might be also worth adding some multiplier to people at the top departments in their country—and so on. There might be quantifiable considerations that have nothing to do with university choice.
Having said that, if CEA or any other org does do something like this, I hope they’ll
a) have the courage to make unpopular weighting decisions when the data clearly justifies them and
b) do it publicly, open sourcing their weighted model, so that anyone interested can see that the data does clearly justify it—hopefully avoiding another PELTIVgate.
I’m curious which direction the disagree voters are disagreeing—are they expressing the view that quantifying people like this at all is bad, or that if you’re going to do it, this is a more effective way?
Perhaps that it doesn’t seem to clearly relate to the context of Jessica’s comment, which I understand to be about prioritizing support for EA student groups at “top” universities. That decision seemingly has to be made on a university level, and—unless the university is particularly strong in a priority area—overall rating is probably the best measure.
Whether field-specific rating is a better measure in other contexts, and whether it is reasonably practical to use it in those contexts, is likely a case-by-case determination. I’d also note that in US undergraduate programs, admission is generally to the university as a whole allowing the student to select any major. I suspect your position is stronger where admission is to a specific program/department and thus the specific program’s reputation is relevant to the applicant characteristics needed to get in.
I have never done community building and am probably ignorant of many ongoing initiatives so maybe I am stating the obvious below.
I am just wondering about mid-career professionals: Could one not easily abandon the focus on elite universities for this group? I think I have seen calls for getting more mid-career professionals into EA (@Letian Wang mentions this in another comment on this post), and I think at a mid-career point people have sufficient track record in their discipline/industry that one can almost completely disregard their education. In my experience, some of the most talented people I have worked with were people who either never considered moving to the UK/US to attend elite universities, or who just did not take university too seriously but later found ways to make significant contributions in their field. Maybe this is more true outside of research roles, as researchers still seem to have a harder time “decoupling” from their undergrad.
I am just wondering about mid-career professionals: Could one not easily abandon the focus on elite universities for this group?
The focus on top universities is to access the people there. Mid-career people (outside of researchers) are no longer at university, so they are not primarily accessed through university groups. I don’t think anyone is applying a harsh undergrad filter to people with strong track records in their field (at least, I’d expect most EAs to be less credentialist that is the norm for e.g. government hiring), and I’m confused why you would think this was the case.
It’s not that it is elitist in the sense that they value top university students more, it’s elitist in that they want people who are more likely to go on to have outsized influence/money to give more of that away to others.
It doesn’t make as much sense to ask poorer students to give away more of their income, or shift their career away from one that maximises their own and their families welfare for the benefit of others.
I think it’s elitist (and inaccurate) to assume that only attendees of a small number of elite universities will have the future funds to give away.
And ultimately it’s not a straight decision between whether to fund a student group at Oxford or one at Oxford Brookes, it’s a decision whether to pay student society leaders at a small number of target universities so much they feel uncomfortable about it and fund expensive retreats for them, or spreading movement building budget more widely to support outreach in more places (that’s not to suggest there aren’t other challenges to setting up more student groups in places that don’t have an existing community). I can see the argument that focusing resources on a handful of courses at a handful of elite universities makes sense for recruitment into a small number of highly specialised positions, but not for maximising future fundraising capacity.
I think it’s inaccurate that only people at top universities are likely to have outsized influence, or to dismiss everyone else as “poorer students” that it “doesn’t make as much sense” to encourage to engage in altruistic activity. The university Sorting Hat really isn’t that good.
And more specifically from a movement building perspective it usually makes sense to prioritise reaching more people than to ensure a small group of [already advantaged] people have access to particularly lavish allowances. Students at elite universities’ ability to achieve outsized impact later in life probably isn’t particularly closely linked to the size of the stipend the current organizer of their well-established EA group is able to claim from central funding bodies, whereas actually having some outreach at other universities is going to have more impact, even if fewer of those students’ impact will be outsized and the median earn to give amounts might be a little lower.
Edit: not really sure what’s so controversial here, though I’ve amended the quote just in case it’s because my representation of DavidNash’s original comment was considered uncharitable.
I agree that it’s inaccurate to say that it’s only people at top universities who are likely to have outsized influence, but that’s not what I said.
Maybe you’re combining the idea that there is too much spending on top universities with the idea that the spending could be spread out amongst more of them rather than spent on non university movement building.
For movement building strategy, it will depend on whether you think a mass movement achieves your goals better than specific fields. For example in animal welfare, it makes sense for GFI to target entrepreneurs and tissue engineers whereas vegan advocacy is aimed more at students and a wider audience.
I believe the connection (which might or might not directly pick up on something you are defending?) is that if you go beyond merely starting your student community building with top universities first as a heuristic, and you further concentrate spending on the top universities to extreme degrees, you are in fact assuming a very strong distinction between those universities. David T has described the distinction in an approximate way as saying there are ‘only’ influential/high-earning-potential people at top universities.
The assumption of a strong distinction can be read from how the decision to concentrate implies it takes a huge amount of marginal funding before the diminishing returns of giving the next dollar to top unis is considered less valuable than giving a first dollar to a mid-range uni.
To defend large disparities between funding of different universities, it’s not enough to say ‘well you have to draw the line somewhere as you can only fund so many universities’; you need to further justify the choice to treat top universities as being in another class.
And arguably that’s an elitist worldview which sees a large difference between top unis and the rest — it’s more elitist if it talks about large talent gaps, implying top unis are able to filter students on intelligence very well; and it’s less elitist if it talks only about ‘people who will go on to be influential’, putting the blame of elitism on the society that rewards elite resumes.
That’s how I relate what David T has been saying, to what you said, DavidNash.
I agree that movement building strategy may vary in specific fields and with your specific examples (and hinted as much about recruitment in my first post!) so I don’t think our differences are irreconcilable!
But your original post conveyed—perhaps more strongly than you intended—the sentiment that it didn’t make much sense to try to persuade people [who in most cases don’t even hear about EA] outside a small number of elite universities to pledge or do direct work [versus the CEA tweaking priorities to direct even more funding to generally already well-established and well-funded student orgs]. If the context was that for every student at $randomuni that was asked to pledge, someone at Oxford never heard about EA, maybe there would be some truth that it made less sense to fund outreach ti them, but I don’t think that represents the reality at all. If anything, the OP and various others have suggested that the funding available in some circumstances is even sufficient to have a negative impact on incentives; on the other hand there’s probably a high return to reaching people who would otherwise not have even heard of EA taking Giving Pledges or contemplating the many areas of direct work that don’t need elite academic credentials.
As for taking the opposite stance and actively trying to spread funding to more universities or workplaces, I recognise there are many other challenges to incubating organizations without the people and institutions already in place and don’t claim to have a solution, but I suspect it would be net positive, and generally more net positive than lowering the funding bar for groups already best positioned to access EA resources. But tbh my comment was less making a particular case for funding and more pushing back on the negative framing of the idea of funding outreach to “poorer students” in a subthread provoked by someone talking about how the original decision was a setback to their attempts to defend the movement against accusations of elitism.
(I also broadly endorse the third David’s interpretation of my argument, FWIW :D)
Hey
I am really sorry to hear about all of these negative experiences. I feel lucky to have gotten to work with you over the years and seen the positive impact you have had on others in the community and the exciting work you have moved into. I think the community will be losing a really lovely person. I admire both your courage in posting this and that you are prioritizing your well-being right now.
I was sad to hear that our team contributed to your negative experiences though I definitely understand. When I first was introduced to the idea of focusing on top universities, I also felt quite uncomfortable with the implications. I knew so many brilliant people not from those top universities and knew many systemic disadvantages prevent people from attending them.
That being said, I do still endorse this prioritization (though not an exclusive one!). In case it’s useful context, for you or others reading this post, I’ve written some reasons why I think this.
When piloting new forms of support or being limited in the number of universities a small team can give higher touch support to, hard decisions have to be made about which universities get that support.
I believe most of the people who go on to have incredibly impactful careers will come from outside those top universities. That is part of why we set up UGAP—to help provide support and opportunities to promising individuals and groups around the world who might not have the same access and advantages.
However, top universities are the places with the highest concentrations of people who ultimately have a very large influence on the world. Partially that is because of the screening mechanisms of the university and but partially it is because of the built-in benefits and unfair advantages that students receive while they attend those universities. Given that this is the reality we’re working with, I believe we should do our best to leverage the existing system and opportunities at these universities to help get more people into high-impact careers. That often means focusing resources on those universities even though that can be demotivating to others.
Again, just wanted to note that I appreciate you sharing this post and am sorry to hear about your experience. I am wishing you the best.
I think this as a piece of reasoning represents a major problem in the perceptions of EA. While it might be factually true, there are two problems with relying on it:
It means surrendering ourselves to this existing state as opposed to trying to change it and create a more equal world.
It means the goal of EA community building is regarded as a funnel trying to get individuals into existing positions determined by the system already in place. There is an alternative: building not a pool of individuals, each of which is separately regarded as a marginal talent contribution—but rather a diverse community that could think more robustly about how to change the world for better, and not be mostly confined to rich, white, technological, western perspectives. IMO this alternative is much more important than the funnel.
On the one hand, I am generally sympathetic to the broader concern.
On the other hand, a suggestion that EA should attempt to change certain deep-rooted truths about the way the world works to “create a more equal world” in addition to its object-level workloads wouldn’t score well with me. As a general matter, the development of non-elite American college students is not neglected or cost-effective, so it is not a viable object-level initiative. It’s only viable as a meta project to the extent that it indirectly contributes to object-level success.
I don’t think focusing CEA resources on elite universities is inherently inconsistent with your second point. Maybe I’m showing my age, but back when I was an undergraduate, most student organizations had access to funding through student government, but little in the way of external subsidy or support. Except for modest sums given to newspaper editors and such, students didn’t get paid for leadership. When trips/retreats were subsidized, the subsidies were partial and the trips were generally within a few hours’ driving distance and on a modest budget. In most cases, there were no external organizations helping student leadership out. (I recognize that this setup makes it more difficult for student of modest means. That was my experience as well—my family was low-income enough that even the school concluded my parents could contribute almost nothing to educational expenses.)
Although there was a shift toward concentrating resources on top universities, it seems from a glance at the UGAP program that the resources that are out there for non-top university EA groups still exceed what student groups generally get in the broader world. To be clear, I’m sure the pulling back of support for non-top university groups was difficult for their organizers who had previously received more support, and that the existence of more supported groups at top universities is discouraging for organizers elsewhere. But the existence of more recruiting-focused programs at top universities does not somehow makes EA inaccessible everywhere else. Thus, it is not inconsistent in my view with working toward “a diverse community that could think more robustly about how to change the world for better.”
A few years ago, I started an EA university group in Chile, got funding and support through UGAP, then got advising through 80k and continued mentoring through OSP. This year, I got hired at CEA’s Groups team.
It’s difficult to trace counterfactual impact, but I suspect this wouldn’t have been possible if UGAP hadn’t helped me get a group started, or if CEA wasn’t able to recognize good talent outside top universities.
I’m biased now, but I think people miss how most of our team’s efforts go to scalable support, which doesn’t necessarily target top universities (and includes universities like mine). Selecting top universities is a good heuristic for getting high-quality group members, but you also get diminishing returns fast because you’re bottlenecked by having great organizers at these universities who are in need of support. This, alongside the fact that there is such a thing as great groups outside of top universities, is why we still spend a lot of time, resources, and money on other universities worldwide.
I’m on the one hand happy to hear that the groups team isn’t as elite-focused as I had thought; on the other hand, I’m still troubled by the margin-based reasoning.
Could you clarify what you mean by margin-based reasoning in this context?
Treating each new person as a separate investment and trying to optimize for their marginal utility for EA, instead of looking at the aggregate effect on the movement of all the community building efforts.
Specifically in your comment, justifying diversifying investment in groups by saying “high quality group members” are the goal but top universities have bottlenecks which can’t be easily solved by just pouring more money into them—instead of arguing that it’s better to have a new group in Chile than a new group in Harvard, even if hypothetically people there were less qualified for existing EA jobs.
Is the portion of efforts that currently do not go to top universities quantifiable, or at least subject to reasonable estimation? I would guess that people who were adversely affected by changes would be more vocal, which could lead to others overestimating the magnitude of those changes on non-top university support.
I love this point and expect I’ll want to link to it in the future; can I suggest putting it on your shortform to make it more accessible?
Thanks, I’ve never used shortform but I’ll try tomorrow
Hi Jessica! I also was happy to work with you. Thanks for commenting. I want to reiterate that I understood this decision and why it was done, but I can’t say it made me feel good (esp when it happened. Maybe one good way to describe it was it felt CEA had favorite kids). And I’ve gotten lots of private messages after this post voicing out similar sad feelings. As someone who does believe in effective decision-making and impartiality in this, I really just understood and accepted it.
I think in my post I was trying to voice out my feelings of sadness I’ve held in, of different aspects of EA and EA CB. Some people can easily make their emotions in tune with their rationally held beliefs. I’m not exactly like that — so despite understanding why CEA did it, it still made me sad about who I was at that period of time. It didn’t mean I couldn’t get into an Ivy League in the future, but it did mean I wasn’t an Ivy League then (not that I hadn’t thought about it, many factors just made it so that college had to be where I was based in), and that automatically made an invisible barrier between me and my Ivy League colleagues.
I agree with some sentiments of others in this comment section — that it plays to the system, and I guess that’s somewhat the fastest most effective way sometimes. But it does make me sad because it makes me feel that so many people in this theoretical future are bound to the status quo.
I am partially sad that a lot of people seem to be missing the point. It kinda proves the point I was trying to make
For what it’s worth, I sympathise with the need to make some hard prioritisation decisions—that’s what EA is about, after all. Nonetheless, it seems like the choice to focus on top universities has been an insufficiently examined heuristic. After all, the following claim...
… is definitely false unless the only categorisation we’re doing of people is ‘the university they go to’. We can subdivide people into any categories we have data on, and while ‘university’ provides a convenient starting point for a young impact-focused organisation, it seems like a now-maturing impact-focused organisation should aspire to do better.
For a simple example, staying focused on universities, most university departments receive their own individual rankings, which are also publicly available (I think the final score for the university is basically some weighted average of these, possibly with some extra factors thrown in).
I’m partially motivated to write this comment because I know of someone who opted to go to the university with the better department for their subject, and has recently found out that, by opting to go to the university with the lower overall ranking, they’re formally downgraded by both immigration departments and EA orgs.
So it seems like EA orgs could do better simply by running a one-off project that pooled departmental rankings and prioritising based on that. It would probably be a reasonably substantial (but low skill) one-off cost with a slight ongoing maintenance cost, but if ‘finding the best future talent’ is so important to EA orgs, it seems worth putting some ongoing effort into doing it better. [ETA—apparently there are some premade rankings that do this!]
This is only one trivial suggestion—I suspect there are many more sources of public data that seem like they could be taken into account to make a fairer and (which IMO is equivalent) more accurate prioritisation system. Since as the OP points out, selecting for the top 100 universities is a form of strong de facto prejudice against people from countries that don’t host one, it might be also worth adding some multiplier to people at the top departments in their country—and so on. There might be quantifiable considerations that have nothing to do with university choice.
Having said that, if CEA or any other org does do something like this, I hope they’ll
a) have the courage to make unpopular weighting decisions when the data clearly justifies them and
b) do it publicly, open sourcing their weighted model, so that anyone interested can see that the data does clearly justify it—hopefully avoiding another PELTIVgate.
I’m curious which direction the disagree voters are disagreeing—are they expressing the view that quantifying people like this at all is bad, or that if you’re going to do it, this is a more effective way?
Perhaps that it doesn’t seem to clearly relate to the context of Jessica’s comment, which I understand to be about prioritizing support for EA student groups at “top” universities. That decision seemingly has to be made on a university level, and—unless the university is particularly strong in a priority area—overall rating is probably the best measure.
Whether field-specific rating is a better measure in other contexts, and whether it is reasonably practical to use it in those contexts, is likely a case-by-case determination. I’d also note that in US undergraduate programs, admission is generally to the university as a whole allowing the student to select any major. I suspect your position is stronger where admission is to a specific program/department and thus the specific program’s reputation is relevant to the applicant characteristics needed to get in.
I have never done community building and am probably ignorant of many ongoing initiatives so maybe I am stating the obvious below.
I am just wondering about mid-career professionals: Could one not easily abandon the focus on elite universities for this group? I think I have seen calls for getting more mid-career professionals into EA (@Letian Wang mentions this in another comment on this post), and I think at a mid-career point people have sufficient track record in their discipline/industry that one can almost completely disregard their education. In my experience, some of the most talented people I have worked with were people who either never considered moving to the UK/US to attend elite universities, or who just did not take university too seriously but later found ways to make significant contributions in their field. Maybe this is more true outside of research roles, as researchers still seem to have a harder time “decoupling” from their undergrad.
The focus on top universities is to access the people there. Mid-career people (outside of researchers) are no longer at university, so they are not primarily accessed through university groups. I don’t think anyone is applying a harsh undergrad filter to people with strong track records in their field (at least, I’d expect most EAs to be less credentialist that is the norm for e.g. government hiring), and I’m confused why you would think this was the case.
That makes sense. I guess it’s then not really that EA is elitist, but the part of EA that focuses on students.
I think ‘elitism’ is not a helpful frame for understanding things here.
It’s not that it is elitist in the sense that they value top university students more, it’s elitist in that they want people who are more likely to go on to have outsized influence/money to give more of that away to others.
It doesn’t make as much sense to ask poorer students to give away more of their income, or shift their career away from one that maximises their own and their families welfare for the benefit of others.
I think it’s elitist (and inaccurate) to assume that only attendees of a small number of elite universities will have the future funds to give away.
And ultimately it’s not a straight decision between whether to fund a student group at Oxford or one at Oxford Brookes, it’s a decision whether to pay student society leaders at a small number of target universities so much they feel uncomfortable about it and fund expensive retreats for them, or spreading movement building budget more widely to support outreach in more places (that’s not to suggest there aren’t other challenges to setting up more student groups in places that don’t have an existing community). I can see the argument that focusing resources on a handful of courses at a handful of elite universities makes sense for recruitment into a small number of highly specialised positions, but not for maximising future fundraising capacity.
Choosing which universities to focus on and how you run a uni group are two different questions.
Why do you think that it’s inaccurate that people at top universities are more likely to go on to have outsized influence?
I think it’s inaccurate that only people at top universities are likely to have outsized influence, or to dismiss everyone else as “poorer students” that it “doesn’t make as much sense” to encourage to engage in altruistic activity. The university Sorting Hat really isn’t that good.
And more specifically from a movement building perspective it usually makes sense to prioritise reaching more people than to ensure a small group of [already advantaged] people have access to particularly lavish allowances. Students at elite universities’ ability to achieve outsized impact later in life probably isn’t particularly closely linked to the size of the stipend the current organizer of their well-established EA group is able to claim from central funding bodies, whereas actually having some outreach at other universities is going to have more impact, even if fewer of those students’ impact will be outsized and the median earn to give amounts might be a little lower.
Edit: not really sure what’s so controversial here, though I’ve amended the quote just in case it’s because my representation of DavidNash’s original comment was considered uncharitable.
I agree that it’s inaccurate to say that it’s only people at top universities who are likely to have outsized influence, but that’s not what I said.
Maybe you’re combining the idea that there is too much spending on top universities with the idea that the spending could be spread out amongst more of them rather than spent on non university movement building.
For movement building strategy, it will depend on whether you think a mass movement achieves your goals better than specific fields. For example in animal welfare, it makes sense for GFI to target entrepreneurs and tissue engineers whereas vegan advocacy is aimed more at students and a wider audience.
I believe the connection (which might or might not directly pick up on something you are defending?) is that if you go beyond merely starting your student community building with top universities first as a heuristic, and you further concentrate spending on the top universities to extreme degrees, you are in fact assuming a very strong distinction between those universities. David T has described the distinction in an approximate way as saying there are ‘only’ influential/high-earning-potential people at top universities.
The assumption of a strong distinction can be read from how the decision to concentrate implies it takes a huge amount of marginal funding before the diminishing returns of giving the next dollar to top unis is considered less valuable than giving a first dollar to a mid-range uni.
To defend large disparities between funding of different universities, it’s not enough to say ‘well you have to draw the line somewhere as you can only fund so many universities’; you need to further justify the choice to treat top universities as being in another class.
And arguably that’s an elitist worldview which sees a large difference between top unis and the rest — it’s more elitist if it talks about large talent gaps, implying top unis are able to filter students on intelligence very well; and it’s less elitist if it talks only about ‘people who will go on to be influential’, putting the blame of elitism on the society that rewards elite resumes.
That’s how I relate what David T has been saying, to what you said, DavidNash.
I agree that movement building strategy may vary in specific fields and with your specific examples (and hinted as much about recruitment in my first post!) so I don’t think our differences are irreconcilable!
But your original post conveyed—perhaps more strongly than you intended—the sentiment that it didn’t make much sense to try to persuade people [who in most cases don’t even hear about EA] outside a small number of elite universities to pledge or do direct work [versus the CEA tweaking priorities to direct even more funding to generally already well-established and well-funded student orgs]. If the context was that for every student at $randomuni that was asked to pledge, someone at Oxford never heard about EA, maybe there would be some truth that it made less sense to fund outreach ti them, but I don’t think that represents the reality at all. If anything, the OP and various others have suggested that the funding available in some circumstances is even sufficient to have a negative impact on incentives; on the other hand there’s probably a high return to reaching people who would otherwise not have even heard of EA taking Giving Pledges or contemplating the many areas of direct work that don’t need elite academic credentials.
As for taking the opposite stance and actively trying to spread funding to more universities or workplaces, I recognise there are many other challenges to incubating organizations without the people and institutions already in place and don’t claim to have a solution, but I suspect it would be net positive, and generally more net positive than lowering the funding bar for groups already best positioned to access EA resources. But tbh my comment was less making a particular case for funding and more pushing back on the negative framing of the idea of funding outreach to “poorer students” in a subthread provoked by someone talking about how the original decision was a setback to their attempts to defend the movement against accusations of elitism.
(I also broadly endorse the third David’s interpretation of my argument, FWIW :D)