This is a really good and important point—thanks, Eli_Nathan. I don’t feel confident in having an ‘answer’ to this potential tradeoff (focusing on raising money vs deepening engagement), but a few thoughts:
1)
It seems that 1FTW attracts similar types of people that the GWWC pledge would, but at higher quantities due to the lower barrier. However, I’m skeptical that this lower barrier is necessarily a positive thing, because it would seem that, on average, these individuals are less likely to further engage with the EA community at large.
I think this is a reasonable view to take, and I agree that on average a OFTW members is less likely to engage deeply with EA than a GWWC member (or similar). I do think we have a number of cases, in particular some chapter leaders and ‘student ambassadors’, who have gone on to engage quite deeply with EA, and who may never have got involved without OFTW’s more broad-based approach. (I guess any evidence I have here is anecdotal though, and I don’t want to talk for others too much). So even if on average fewer people deeply engage with EA, I think it is very plausible that the total number is higher. I think the optimal setup at a university would be to have a thriving OFTW chapter (or something similar) that is engaging the broader student body with EA ideas, and a thriving general EA group that funnels those who are more interested in EA and other cause areas to get more involved. (See my other comments on the complementarity of these groups, and on the idea of ‘widening the funnel’ of engagement with EA, so more people just get involved, and more end up more deeply engaged).
2)
In my eyes, the comparative advantage for student groups is more about driving engagement and plan changes and less about raising funds.
I think this is also a very reasonable (and increasingly common) view to hold. Again, I think the ideal setup is for a general EA group to work with OFTW on this, but I think this is an area we would like our chapters to improve on. In discussions with GiveWell about the grant, they gave us feedback that they’d like to see more promotion of EA more generally by our chapters, and we also talked a bit about trying to offer 80,000-hours style material, to help generate engagement, plan changes and improve the ‘talent pool’ in EA. I think these are both areas that we want to improve on as we grow and increase our capacity.
3)
Of course, money still goes a long way, but I’m skeptical that group leaders should be spending their time focusing on (relatively) small donations over building communities of talented, engaged individuals.
On this, I think this is a fair short-term critique of the amount of money we are currently raising, but I think a lot of the (monetary) value in what we are doing is yet to be realised. I don’t know the stats off the top of my head, but X% of Wharton MBAs go on to become worth $Ym, and we want to try and engage these ‘future rich’ (and influential) people with EA at a relatively early stage (and while their preferences are still fairly malleable!). Keeping our members engaged over the years is going to be a key factor in our success going forward though!
This is a really good and important point—thanks, Eli_Nathan. I don’t feel confident in having an ‘answer’ to this potential tradeoff (focusing on raising money vs deepening engagement), but a few thoughts:
1)
I think this is a reasonable view to take, and I agree that on average a OFTW members is less likely to engage deeply with EA than a GWWC member (or similar). I do think we have a number of cases, in particular some chapter leaders and ‘student ambassadors’, who have gone on to engage quite deeply with EA, and who may never have got involved without OFTW’s more broad-based approach. (I guess any evidence I have here is anecdotal though, and I don’t want to talk for others too much). So even if on average fewer people deeply engage with EA, I think it is very plausible that the total number is higher. I think the optimal setup at a university would be to have a thriving OFTW chapter (or something similar) that is engaging the broader student body with EA ideas, and a thriving general EA group that funnels those who are more interested in EA and other cause areas to get more involved. (See my other comments on the complementarity of these groups, and on the idea of ‘widening the funnel’ of engagement with EA, so more people just get involved, and more end up more deeply engaged).
2)
I think this is also a very reasonable (and increasingly common) view to hold. Again, I think the ideal setup is for a general EA group to work with OFTW on this, but I think this is an area we would like our chapters to improve on. In discussions with GiveWell about the grant, they gave us feedback that they’d like to see more promotion of EA more generally by our chapters, and we also talked a bit about trying to offer 80,000-hours style material, to help generate engagement, plan changes and improve the ‘talent pool’ in EA. I think these are both areas that we want to improve on as we grow and increase our capacity.
3)
On this, I think this is a fair short-term critique of the amount of money we are currently raising, but I think a lot of the (monetary) value in what we are doing is yet to be realised. I don’t know the stats off the top of my head, but X% of Wharton MBAs go on to become worth $Ym, and we want to try and engage these ‘future rich’ (and influential) people with EA at a relatively early stage (and while their preferences are still fairly malleable!). Keeping our members engaged over the years is going to be a key factor in our success going forward though!