Conditional on you already receiving reimbursement of costs and approval to EAG, I’m 80% sure that some marginal increases over your limit, like an extra hotel within reasonable tube distance (even at last minute London prices) would be approved without issue.
Also, I will just flat out say that if someone has a situation like this in the future, where payment for a hotel would be this key, please contact me. There are things that will reimburse this.
By the way, note that I currently request and receive reimbursement of travel costs to conferences. Also, I intend to push my luck over the approved limit for at least one event in the future (it seems like I undershot my estimates, things have gotten pricier, and there’s valuable peripheral events before/after the conference that increases stay time).
That’s a really important point to know, actually. I’m glad you told me that. I was always scared if I went over the limit, it might get revoked or I might get rejected in future if I was ‘taking the mick’. It’s good to know it’s not as strict. I tend to ask for lower amounts because if I get rejected, it’s catastrophic, so I’d rather suffer more and raise my odds than risk it.
I got £500 approved to go to Oxford and London split between them (£300 and £200), but in future I might ask for more.
It’s becoming clear in this thread that a lot of the problem with this is that people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds just have no experience and no fallback with how reimbursement systems work so err on the side of caution rather than not, in addition to trying to keep costs low in any way they can in order to both get accepted and also show they’re not taking advantage. Maybe if EA had a special hardship fund or whatever where they could talk with an EDI representative, people would feel more confident applying for specific amounts given their circumstances? Just a spitball.
trying to keep costs low in any way they can in order to both get accepted
Note that the recent docs on EAG travel (that at least covers through EAGx Prague, but may not cover beyond that) suggest that requesting cover for travel does not negatively affect your chances of acceptance.
(Note that this doesn’t necessarily give a person cover in the situation of ex-post going over budget, or cover reputational effects—but you should be able to push through any issues by being good and impactful).
It’s becoming clear in this thread that a lot of the problem with this is that people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds just have no experience and no fallback with how reimbursement systems work
Another perspective is that for many people, like myself, we can take that 20% chance of no reimbursement (in other careers/institutions, if not EA), and by doing this, we can get comfortable and “learn the system”.
On the other hand, you can’t, with just five pounds in your bank account.
So you put yourself in a tough situation, and then blow past three meetings. So there’s three people who might think you are less promising, because of your own hardship.
It is costly to be poor.
Not everyone knows the feeling of fear, social stigma. I am furious at this situation you had to experience.
Disclaimer: I believe the things I said in this thread, but I detest giving an impression of “virtue” or clout and I am also uncertain about the value or system effects of any action here from EA. So I add that: I don’t really know the answer or fully agree with everything you wrote in your blog. From my personal perspective, there seems to be many constituencies in EA who need satisfying already. I don’t want to add necessarily more noise, such as making CEA, who are already up to their eyeballs in work and other considerations, think about this issue in an unnatural way. I am very privileged.
Also, a guess is that the so called PR or other purported adverse issues related to EA spending might currently affect travel reimbursement and larger event admissions.
I have no real idea, but it’s not crazy that this is related to why your emails need to bounce through a few more people before approval. (We don’t actually need to know any details or need a response from CEA).
These recent issues are a bit of a turbulence. But it seems good to be against rumors, fear mongering and people spending a lot of time on posts that seem inflammatory and where the evidence/solutions/system effects haven’t been considered—this sentiment can have huge indirect effects.
Conditional on you already receiving reimbursement of costs and approval to EAG, I’m 80% sure that some marginal increases over your limit, like an extra hotel within reasonable tube distance (even at last minute London prices) would be approved without issue.
Also, I will just flat out say that if someone has a situation like this in the future, where payment for a hotel would be this key, please contact me. There are things that will reimburse this.
By the way, note that I currently request and receive reimbursement of travel costs to conferences. Also, I intend to push my luck over the approved limit for at least one event in the future (it seems like I undershot my estimates, things have gotten pricier, and there’s valuable peripheral events before/after the conference that increases stay time).
That’s a really important point to know, actually. I’m glad you told me that. I was always scared if I went over the limit, it might get revoked or I might get rejected in future if I was ‘taking the mick’. It’s good to know it’s not as strict. I tend to ask for lower amounts because if I get rejected, it’s catastrophic, so I’d rather suffer more and raise my odds than risk it.
I got £500 approved to go to Oxford and London split between them (£300 and £200), but in future I might ask for more.
It’s becoming clear in this thread that a lot of the problem with this is that people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds just have no experience and no fallback with how reimbursement systems work so err on the side of caution rather than not, in addition to trying to keep costs low in any way they can in order to both get accepted and also show they’re not taking advantage. Maybe if EA had a special hardship fund or whatever where they could talk with an EDI representative, people would feel more confident applying for specific amounts given their circumstances? Just a spitball.
Note that the recent docs on EAG travel (that at least covers through EAGx Prague, but may not cover beyond that) suggest that requesting cover for travel does not negatively affect your chances of acceptance.
(Note that this doesn’t necessarily give a person cover in the situation of ex-post going over budget, or cover reputational effects—but you should be able to push through any issues by being good and impactful).
Another perspective is that for many people, like myself, we can take that 20% chance of no reimbursement (in other careers/institutions, if not EA), and by doing this, we can get comfortable and “learn the system”.
On the other hand, you can’t, with just five pounds in your bank account.
So you put yourself in a tough situation, and then blow past three meetings. So there’s three people who might think you are less promising, because of your own hardship.
It is costly to be poor.
Not everyone knows the feeling of fear, social stigma. I am furious at this situation you had to experience.
Disclaimer: I believe the things I said in this thread, but I detest giving an impression of “virtue” or clout and I am also uncertain about the value or system effects of any action here from EA. So I add that: I don’t really know the answer or fully agree with everything you wrote in your blog. From my personal perspective, there seems to be many constituencies in EA who need satisfying already. I don’t want to add necessarily more noise, such as making CEA, who are already up to their eyeballs in work and other considerations, think about this issue in an unnatural way. I am very privileged.
Also, a guess is that the so called PR or other purported adverse issues related to EA spending might currently affect travel reimbursement and larger event admissions.
I have no real idea, but it’s not crazy that this is related to why your emails need to bounce through a few more people before approval. (We don’t actually need to know any details or need a response from CEA).
These recent issues are a bit of a turbulence. But it seems good to be against rumors, fear mongering and people spending a lot of time on posts that seem inflammatory and where the evidence/solutions/system effects haven’t been considered—this sentiment can have huge indirect effects.