Is it because the FHI lacked funding, or that it didn’t manage to hire people[?]
My impression, as an employee that was never privy to much information beyond what I could gather from conversations with other researchers and a few occasional emails from the University: One of the biggest problems for FHI is that it has a poor relationship with the Department of Philosophy, its formal “home” within Oxford University. This breakdown of relations has meant that FHI has not been ‘allowed’ to hire since sometime in 2021 (I think I was among the last new people to join FHI when I joined in Oct’ 2021). That is, FHI did (as far as I am aware) have funds to hire people, but could not do it because hiring occurs through the University system, and the University disallowed it.
That raises the question, why the breakdown of relations? Your answer will depend on whom you ask – I imagine that the Department of Philosophy and Nick Bostrom would give very, very different answers as to what the root cause was. In early 2022, the Department conducted a formal ‘review’ of FHI, though I never heard what came of it. I have my own guesses that might be too speculative to share here, but I’ll just note that the Global Priorities Institute is housed in the same department, within the same university, uses the same offices, has some of the same funders, and, to my knowledge, does not have the same challenges, at least not to the point where they have been unable to hire.
or [is it] that people found better alternatives to their FHI roles?
Often that would be the reason, yes. Personally, I went down to part-time after a few months of full-time at FHI because I was keen to work for another organization that had a more cohesive strategy and more concrete projects.
When I later resigned, it was because I wanted all of my time working for another organization, which was similarly related to the lack of management, support, and strategy at FHI. At that point, it was also because I did not want to be associated with the Institute, given my worldviews and even from a reputational perspective.
Thank you for your initial answer and response jtm, I’ve found both very valuable to read. As always, it’d be really interesting to know more but I’ll leave my questions here and not pry further. Thanks for sharing your insight, and I hope you’re enjoying your new role and doing good work there :)
Hi, thanks for your response and for the context about general university-related processes.
I’m pretty confident that if you ask almost anyone who has worked for FHI within the past two years, their overall account will match mine, even if they would frame some details differently. In my time there, I did not hear anyone present a significantly different version of events. (I don’t just mean this rhetorically – it’d be great to hear from anyone else at FHI here!)
I’ll just respond with some context to specific parts:
First, the entire Oxford University had a hiring freeze—not just the Philosophy Dept., not just FHI—the whole school paused hiring when Covid hit. The university I worked for did the same thing just 4 years prior when it’s endowment took a massive hit—hiring freezes are normal.
No, I was referring to a hiring freeze affecting FHI, specifically. As mentioned, the Global Priorities Institute – based in the same philosophy department, at the same university, and using the same offices – has been able to recruit new hires long after FHI stopped being able to do so in early 2021. (I think I received my job offer in late 2020; I know that RSP was unable to recruit for a new cohort when they tried to do so in January 2021).
For those running to point out GPI is hiring—that’s because the Forethought Foundation helps them circumvent the dept (which is what FHI was trying to do too).
As far as I am aware, most/all GPI staff are members of the University staff, i.e. hired by GPI rather than Forethought.
Second, the first thing one does when money is tight is prioritize—and unfortunately that brings up an uncomfortable conversation about which departments are essential/priority to sustain. [...] Unfortunately, Oxford might be reevaluating FHI in light of its new institute
I don’t know FHI’s exact financial situation, but I know that the institute relied to a significant degree on philanthropic funding (e.g. 1, 2, 3), as opposed to funding from the university. I think it is very unlikely that FHI’s inability to hire owes to not receiving funds from the University. For example, Open Philanthropy recommended a large grant for the Research Scholars Program in April 2021, but the program has still not been able to bring on new scholars since then.
Third, the “formal review” that JTM mentioned was probably a review being done on all depts
No, I am quite confident that this was specifically a review of FHI. This impression is based on conversations among staff. Looking just now, I also have an email that was sent to FHI staff from the Faculty of Philosophy that gives me the same impression.
Finally, JTM also mentioned that GPI hasn’t been struggling as much as FHI and suggest it’s because of senior leadership’s relationship with the University.
Maybe you would also call this hearsay, but in their resignation letter that was circulated among staff in August 2021 (shared by the resignee themself), one senior member of FHI’s staff referred specifically to the “unreasonably bad relationship with the faculty” as the cause of FHI’s inability to hire or fundraise.
Hi,
My impression, as an employee that was never privy to much information beyond what I could gather from conversations with other researchers and a few occasional emails from the University: One of the biggest problems for FHI is that it has a poor relationship with the Department of Philosophy, its formal “home” within Oxford University. This breakdown of relations has meant that FHI has not been ‘allowed’ to hire since sometime in 2021 (I think I was among the last new people to join FHI when I joined in Oct’ 2021). That is, FHI did (as far as I am aware) have funds to hire people, but could not do it because hiring occurs through the University system, and the University disallowed it.
That raises the question, why the breakdown of relations? Your answer will depend on whom you ask – I imagine that the Department of Philosophy and Nick Bostrom would give very, very different answers as to what the root cause was. In early 2022, the Department conducted a formal ‘review’ of FHI, though I never heard what came of it. I have my own guesses that might be too speculative to share here, but I’ll just note that the Global Priorities Institute is housed in the same department, within the same university, uses the same offices, has some of the same funders, and, to my knowledge, does not have the same challenges, at least not to the point where they have been unable to hire.
Often that would be the reason, yes. Personally, I went down to part-time after a few months of full-time at FHI because I was keen to work for another organization that had a more cohesive strategy and more concrete projects.
When I later resigned, it was because I wanted all of my time working for another organization, which was similarly related to the lack of management, support, and strategy at FHI. At that point, it was also because I did not want to be associated with the Institute, given my worldviews and even from a reputational perspective.
Thank you for your initial answer and response jtm, I’ve found both very valuable to read. As always, it’d be really interesting to know more but I’ll leave my questions here and not pry further. Thanks for sharing your insight, and I hope you’re enjoying your new role and doing good work there :)
[edit deleted]
Hi, thanks for your response and for the context about general university-related processes.
I’m pretty confident that if you ask almost anyone who has worked for FHI within the past two years, their overall account will match mine, even if they would frame some details differently. In my time there, I did not hear anyone present a significantly different version of events. (I don’t just mean this rhetorically – it’d be great to hear from anyone else at FHI here!)
I’ll just respond with some context to specific parts:
No, I was referring to a hiring freeze affecting FHI, specifically. As mentioned, the Global Priorities Institute – based in the same philosophy department, at the same university, and using the same offices – has been able to recruit new hires long after FHI stopped being able to do so in early 2021. (I think I received my job offer in late 2020; I know that RSP was unable to recruit for a new cohort when they tried to do so in January 2021).
As far as I am aware, most/all GPI staff are members of the University staff, i.e. hired by GPI rather than Forethought.
I don’t know FHI’s exact financial situation, but I know that the institute relied to a significant degree on philanthropic funding (e.g. 1, 2, 3), as opposed to funding from the university. I think it is very unlikely that FHI’s inability to hire owes to not receiving funds from the University. For example, Open Philanthropy recommended a large grant for the Research Scholars Program in April 2021, but the program has still not been able to bring on new scholars since then.
No, I am quite confident that this was specifically a review of FHI. This impression is based on conversations among staff. Looking just now, I also have an email that was sent to FHI staff from the Faculty of Philosophy that gives me the same impression.
Maybe you would also call this hearsay, but in their resignation letter that was circulated among staff in August 2021 (shared by the resignee themself), one senior member of FHI’s staff referred specifically to the “unreasonably bad relationship with the faculty” as the cause of FHI’s inability to hire or fundraise.