(Technically not working at AIM anymore, but I was the CEO until recently.)
So I think the broad question is that AIM, and others, should aim to create value from people who get close, not just those who get in. âYou get into AIM = huge win vs you just miss and get nothingâ is not ideal. This is a solid idea, and I think AIM (and anyone with strong application pools) should probably spend more time on this.
Re: Matching people /â helping them found outside of AIM We did try this a couple of times, but it did not result in especially strong charities. For a charity to become top tier (which is where almost all our modeled EV comes from), many things have to go right simultaneously. Even if two near-misses connect, it is harder for them without cohort benefits, seed funders, and time to test matching deeply before committing. In general, a 50% version of AIM does not yield 50% of the EV, more like 5%.
Re: Closed vs open rounds If we did closed rounds including people from prior cohorts, we would likely lose ~50% of our talent pool but save ~90% of team time on vetting and comms. However, this is not a good trade-off. Smaller cohorts mean worse matching and fewer charities. I am strongly in favor of open application rounds and think this is still underused in the EA movement.
Re: What could work for near-miss folks What we have seen work are training programs for people going early into adjacent career paths (AIM has run some of these; HIP and Impactful Policy are strong current examples). Another approach is placing people in high-impact charities (often older AIM charities), as Huw mentions. We could be more systematic about both. More broadly, organizations with strong applicant pools should think carefully about how to create value from strong but non-selected candidates.
Hi Joey, thanks for replying. Zooming in on this point: âIf we did closed rounds including people from prior cohorts, we would likely lose ~50% of our talent pool but save ~90% of team time on vetting and comms.â
Whatâs a ballpark figure for the amount of money that 90% of team time represents? This is the amount that could potentially be saved per round.
Having that figure is important; it would help one to assess whether itâs a potentially good trade-off. If the amount would be substantial, then the savings could fund the fewer charities that are incubated, for example.
P.S Iâm also unsure of how hiring from near-misses = fewer charities. Thereâs probably a large stockpile of finalists, just from the final 1% of previous rounds.
(Technically not working at AIM anymore, but I was the CEO until recently.)
So I think the broad question is that AIM, and others, should aim to create value from people who get close, not just those who get in. âYou get into AIM = huge win vs you just miss and get nothingâ is not ideal. This is a solid idea, and I think AIM (and anyone with strong application pools) should probably spend more time on this.
Re: Matching people /â helping them found outside of AIM
We did try this a couple of times, but it did not result in especially strong charities. For a charity to become top tier (which is where almost all our modeled EV comes from), many things have to go right simultaneously. Even if two near-misses connect, it is harder for them without cohort benefits, seed funders, and time to test matching deeply before committing. In general, a 50% version of AIM does not yield 50% of the EV, more like 5%.
Re: Closed vs open rounds
If we did closed rounds including people from prior cohorts, we would likely lose ~50% of our talent pool but save ~90% of team time on vetting and comms. However, this is not a good trade-off. Smaller cohorts mean worse matching and fewer charities. I am strongly in favor of open application rounds and think this is still underused in the EA movement.
Re: What could work for near-miss folks
What we have seen work are training programs for people going early into adjacent career paths (AIM has run some of these; HIP and Impactful Policy are strong current examples). Another approach is placing people in high-impact charities (often older AIM charities), as Huw mentions. We could be more systematic about both. More broadly, organizations with strong applicant pools should think carefully about how to create value from strong but non-selected candidates.
Hi Joey, thanks for replying. Zooming in on this point: âIf we did closed rounds including people from prior cohorts, we would likely lose ~50% of our talent pool but save ~90% of team time on vetting and comms.â
Whatâs a ballpark figure for the amount of money that 90% of team time represents? This is the amount that could potentially be saved per round.
Having that figure is important; it would help one to assess whether itâs a potentially good trade-off. If the amount would be substantial, then the savings could fund the fewer charities that are incubated, for example.
P.S Iâm also unsure of how hiring from near-misses = fewer charities. Thereâs probably a large stockpile of finalists, just from the final 1% of previous rounds.