Thanks all for your input, and thanks Felix for writing such a detailed reply. I am leaning towards 100, but I have to say, the question isn’t very well written. As jason says, to which are you comparing? The median or average? The worst? This obviously massively changes the answer.
@Thomas Stewart I wish you good luck for your application. As a side note, I hope you already send your application to the Charity Entrepreneurship before you asked on the forum for an answer of the application quiz.
Hi all, this is probably very cheeky but here goes anyway. I’ve been trying to career switch into something EA and so am currently applying for the Charity Entrepreneurship programme. One of the application questions puzzled me. Having read Doing Good Better I was pretty sure of the answer but then questioned it again. The question is “When comparing charities in the world I’d estimate the most effective ones are a) Closest to 100x better b) closest to 10,000 x better.” The other options are clearly wrong so won’t list them here.
My initial reaction was to pick a) because thinking back on the book I remember William saying that 1 QALY for DMI is about $10, bednets about $100 and the US is willing to spend $50,000 per QALY. But the US isn’t a charity. And I know that some animal charities can be very effective but you can’ t measure their effectiveness in QALYs. So I was just wondering what other people would pick, a) or b)?
There are some interventions which are up to 10,000 x better, comparing them to low performing ones, but I don’t think the question is intended this way.
Quote from a GivingWhatWeCan Giving Game Slide:
The best charities can be at least ten times better than a typical charity within the same area, or hundreds of times better than poor-performing charities. Some charities even actively harm those they seek to help.
The source for this claim can be found here: The Moral Imperative Towards Cost-Effectiveness by Toby Ord
[...] moving money from the least effective intervention to the most effective would produce about 15,000 times the benefit, and even moving it from the median intervention to the most effective would produce about 60 times the benefit.
I think the question is intended the way that “10 – 100 x times” is the correct answer. But please take a look into the essay from Toby Ord and decide for yourself.
Thanks all for your input, and thanks Felix for writing such a detailed reply. I am leaning towards 100, but I have to say, the question isn’t very well written. As jason says, to which are you comparing? The median or average? The worst? This obviously massively changes the answer.
I’m afraid you probably posted this in the wrong place, it’s unclear what you are referring to
He refers to this shortform:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/BhbzZEDQXiaLK4Av5/thomas-stewart-s-shortform?commentId=DFBxyL7AAFj9u8h4f
@Thomas Stewart I wish you good luck for your application. As a side note, I hope you already send your application to the Charity Entrepreneurship before you asked on the forum for an answer of the application quiz.
Hi all, this is probably very cheeky but here goes anyway. I’ve been trying to career switch into something EA and so am currently applying for the Charity Entrepreneurship programme. One of the application questions puzzled me. Having read Doing Good Better I was pretty sure of the answer but then questioned it again. The question is “When comparing charities in the world I’d estimate the most effective ones are a) Closest to 100x better b) closest to 10,000 x better.” The other options are clearly wrong so won’t list them here.
My initial reaction was to pick a) because thinking back on the book I remember William saying that 1 QALY for DMI is about $10, bednets about $100 and the US is willing to spend $50,000 per QALY. But the US isn’t a charity. And I know that some animal charities can be very effective but you can’ t measure their effectiveness in QALYs. So I was just wondering what other people would pick, a) or b)?
Better than average? Than the worst?
🙏
I would assume 100x better. Tell me if you find out.
There are some interventions which are up to 10,000 x better, comparing them to low performing ones, but I don’t think the question is intended this way.
Quote from a GivingWhatWeCan Giving Game Slide:
The source for this claim can be found here:
The Moral Imperative Towards Cost-Effectiveness by Toby Ord
I think the question is intended the way that “10 – 100 x times” is the correct answer. But please take a look into the essay from Toby Ord and decide for yourself.
80k has published recently a blogpost about this topic you may be interested in @Thomas Stewart.
How much do solutions to social problems differ in their effectiveness? A collection of all the studies we could find.
By Benjamin Todd · Published February 14th, 2023