I wonder if Berkeley had a notably high rate of both no-shows and last-minute interest in attending because the FTX crisis two weeks prior probably changed a lot of peoples’ calculus about whether and in what ways they want to be engaged with the EA community/EA network. (Some in the direction of ‘actually I don’t want to attend; I have lost a lot of belief that EA is worthwhile’, and some in the direction of ‘I’ve been trying to make sense of this alone and would particularly benefit from attending discussions and talking with likeminded people’).
A fixed rate of no-shows is much easier to handle than an unprecedented rate, and a predictable surge in interest right before/right after the deadline is much easier to plan for than an unusual one. I’m curious how Berkeley compares to other recent EAGs that way.
EAGxBerkeley did have a higher rate of late applications than other EAGx events. % of applications that came in the last 3 days:
LatAm: 12.5%
Berkeley: 22%
Rotterdam: 12.9%
Singapore: 9%
Boston: 12%
I’m unsure whether the FTX crisis was the cause—it could also be how the team marketed the event (a big last push, maybe?) or norms around how early to apply to events. But FTX seems plausible.
I don’t have the data on no-shows to hand but the rate also seems slightly higher to me, based on eyeballing leftover badges/people admitted (an imperfect measure).
I still think many of the norms suggested here are reasonable asks, even if Berkeley was unusual in some ways.
I suspect that students had more hesitations about EAGx Berkeley than about other EAGxs because of end-of-semester timing (e.g. concurrent with exam preparation). One third of the undergrads whom I encouraged to apply ended up skipping the event citing the time conflict with schoolwork. Thus, the end-of-semester timing seems to explain some of the procrastination and absentees.
I wonder if Berkeley had a notably high rate of both no-shows and last-minute interest in attending because the FTX crisis two weeks prior probably changed a lot of peoples’ calculus about whether and in what ways they want to be engaged with the EA community/EA network. (Some in the direction of ‘actually I don’t want to attend; I have lost a lot of belief that EA is worthwhile’, and some in the direction of ‘I’ve been trying to make sense of this alone and would particularly benefit from attending discussions and talking with likeminded people’).
A fixed rate of no-shows is much easier to handle than an unprecedented rate, and a predictable surge in interest right before/right after the deadline is much easier to plan for than an unusual one. I’m curious how Berkeley compares to other recent EAGs that way.
EAGxBerkeley did have a higher rate of late applications than other EAGx events. % of applications that came in the last 3 days:
LatAm: 12.5%
Berkeley: 22%
Rotterdam: 12.9%
Singapore: 9%
Boston: 12%
I’m unsure whether the FTX crisis was the cause—it could also be how the team marketed the event (a big last push, maybe?) or norms around how early to apply to events. But FTX seems plausible.
I don’t have the data on no-shows to hand but the rate also seems slightly higher to me, based on eyeballing leftover badges/people admitted (an imperfect measure).
I still think many of the norms suggested here are reasonable asks, even if Berkeley was unusual in some ways.
I suspect that students had more hesitations about EAGx Berkeley than about other EAGxs because of end-of-semester timing (e.g. concurrent with exam preparation). One third of the undergrads whom I encouraged to apply ended up skipping the event citing the time conflict with schoolwork. Thus, the end-of-semester timing seems to explain some of the procrastination and absentees.