I am skeptical and would like to see the math on standard deviations. For the US, according to this, about one third of Nobel prizes were awarded to people who did their undergraduate at a non top 100 global university (and Iām pretty sure it would be the majority outside the global top 20 that are in the US). And you donāt have to win a Nobel Prize in order to become an EA! So I think there is lots of potential talent for EA outside the global top 100, at least at the undergraduate level. A key factor here is sizeāmany of the most elite schools are not very big. For instance, the honors college at Penn State has similar SAT scores to Princeton, and it has about half as many undergrads as Princeton. At the graduate level, I think the talent tends to concentrate more, but I still think there is significant talent outside the global top 100.
(Edit: Penn State honors college is larger than Swarthmore.)
I mean sure, but whatās important here isnāt really the absolute number of intelligent/āambitious people, but the relative concentration of them. One third of Nobel prizes going to people who didnāt complete their undergrad at a top 100 global university means that 2ā3 of the Nobel prizes did. Out of ~30K global universities, 2ā3 of Nobels are concentrated in the top 100. The talent exists outside top universities, but focusing on them with limited resources seems more tractable than spreading thin with lower average intelligence/āambition.
Of course we need to prioritize. The Nobel example we have data for, but I think that is too high a bar. My point is that there are probably a similar number of potential EAs at the big relatively high ranking state schools like University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign or University of Texas at Austin as there are at Princeton. The state school students may have lower wealth and political connections, but I think the capability is there (and perhaps less entitlement). (Disclosure: I went to Penn State, Princeton, and University of Colorado at Boulder.)
I agree that size is a really important consideration that could substantially upend the math here. As long as a Campus Centre at a big-and-good-but-not-stellar school could find decent methods to filter for potential EAs (I think they could, but think this is the weakest point in the argument) they could easily achieve comparable impact to a small top-flight school.
Iād be excited to see someone have a crack at generating an alternative priority list for Campus Centres taking this into account, to see if it actually differs from CEAās list. (I think taking into account āthe track record of its group, and the quality of the groupās current plansā, which seem like good factors for prioritising the initial round, will probably make the two lists more similar, though.)
Agree that honors college students are an attractive organizing opportunity. One could look at U.S. public flagships that reel in a disproportionate share of National Merit Scholars (UF, University of Minnesota, etc.) for their honors programs as starting points. These, and other talent-dense schools like Penn State, are very promising. To your point here:
I think the capability is there (and perhaps less entitlement).
EA might gain more mindshare at public honors colleges. Students at those schools strike me as a bit scrappier/āmore focused than students at stereotypical private universities where I and many EAs studied. Private university students may have more sirens of influence calling their names, in terms of:
Constant recruiting events by Goldman Sachs, consultancies, and other firms not-so-subtly offering large bonuses and potential channels to OECD country influence
The current Campus Specialist plan (including the set of first-wave campuses!) makes total sense to me. At the same time Iām rooting for target-rich public honors colleges and universities topping this list to comprise a good share of Wave 2!
Goldmanās own data-driven recruiters have taken this approach. From a 2017 article:
Goldman Sachs is embracing top students from outside the hallowed halls of the Ivy Leagueā¦ Lloyd Blankfein hosted a fireside chat in September for 250 students from Macaulay Honors College, a New York-based public school, during which he outlined the firmās new outlook on recruiting talent. He told students the firm is no longer ātrappingā itself by ārecruiting from the same 30 or 40 schools.ā
The firm has been deepening its relationship with the college, which is considered a high-caliber public school. On November 3, Goldman hosted a resume and interview workshop for 75 Macaulay students....
[Blankfein]: āIt wasnāt an act of kindness on my part, or generosity, or trying to create diversity; it was pure selfish, naked self-interest. We wanted to really extend our net further because everybodyās involved pretty much in a war for talent...ā
Iām not sure youād need to filter significantly more than at other universities. That implies you think students at non top universities would as a proportion be less interested in EA, which seems far from obvious. Could just have a really big group.
I think the math is going to be roughly that if 1ā3 of the prizes go to schools 1-10, 1ā3 to schools 11-100, and 1ā3 to schools 101-onwards, then the hit rate (in terms of prizewinners) goes up by an order of magnitude each time you narrow your target audience. So if youāre going to target non-elite schools, and you canāt fully support hundreds of schools, youād want to do that outreach at least somewhat more cheaplyāmaking books available or something.
I am skeptical and would like to see the math on standard deviations. For the US, according to this, about one third of Nobel prizes were awarded to people who did their undergraduate at a non top 100 global university (and Iām pretty sure it would be the majority outside the global top 20 that are in the US). And you donāt have to win a Nobel Prize in order to become an EA! So I think there is lots of potential talent for EA outside the global top 100, at least at the undergraduate level. A key factor here is sizeāmany of the most elite schools are not very big. For instance, the honors college at Penn State has similar SAT scores to Princeton, and it has about half as many undergrads as Princeton. At the graduate level, I think the talent tends to concentrate more, but I still think there is significant talent outside the global top 100.
(Edit: Penn State honors college is larger than Swarthmore.)
I mean sure, but whatās important here isnāt really the absolute number of intelligent/āambitious people, but the relative concentration of them. One third of Nobel prizes going to people who didnāt complete their undergrad at a top 100 global university means that 2ā3 of the Nobel prizes did. Out of ~30K global universities, 2ā3 of Nobels are concentrated in the top 100. The talent exists outside top universities, but focusing on them with limited resources seems more tractable than spreading thin with lower average intelligence/āambition.
Of course we need to prioritize. The Nobel example we have data for, but I think that is too high a bar. My point is that there are probably a similar number of potential EAs at the big relatively high ranking state schools like University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign or University of Texas at Austin as there are at Princeton. The state school students may have lower wealth and political connections, but I think the capability is there (and perhaps less entitlement). (Disclosure: I went to Penn State, Princeton, and University of Colorado at Boulder.)
I agree that size is a really important consideration that could substantially upend the math here. As long as a Campus Centre at a big-and-good-but-not-stellar school could find decent methods to filter for potential EAs (I think they could, but think this is the weakest point in the argument) they could easily achieve comparable impact to a small top-flight school.
Iād be excited to see someone have a crack at generating an alternative priority list for Campus Centres taking this into account, to see if it actually differs from CEAās list. (I think taking into account āthe track record of its group, and the quality of the groupās current plansā, which seem like good factors for prioritising the initial round, will probably make the two lists more similar, though.)
I agree that filtering is importantāthe easy thing to do is target the honors colleges (or whatever they call them) within the universities.
Agree that honors college students are an attractive organizing opportunity. One could look at U.S. public flagships that reel in a disproportionate share of National Merit Scholars (UF, University of Minnesota, etc.) for their honors programs as starting points. These, and other talent-dense schools like Penn State, are very promising. To your point here:
EA might gain more mindshare at public honors colleges. Students at those schools strike me as a bit scrappier/āmore focused than students at stereotypical private universities where I and many EAs studied. Private university students may have more sirens of influence calling their names, in terms of:
Constant recruiting events by Goldman Sachs, consultancies, and other firms not-so-subtly offering large bonuses and potential channels to OECD country influence
Unusual faculty mentorship opportunities from former heads of state, prominent writers, etc.
Time-consuming groups with a history of producing influential leaders and writers
The current Campus Specialist plan (including the set of first-wave campuses!) makes total sense to me. At the same time Iām rooting for target-rich public honors colleges and universities topping this list to comprise a good share of Wave 2!
Goldmanās own data-driven recruiters have taken this approach. From a 2017 article:
Iām not sure youād need to filter significantly more than at other universities. That implies you think students at non top universities would as a proportion be less interested in EA, which seems far from obvious. Could just have a really big group.
I think the math is going to be roughly that if 1ā3 of the prizes go to schools 1-10, 1ā3 to schools 11-100, and 1ā3 to schools 101-onwards, then the hit rate (in terms of prizewinners) goes up by an order of magnitude each time you narrow your target audience. So if youāre going to target non-elite schools, and you canāt fully support hundreds of schools, youād want to do that outreach at least somewhat more cheaplyāmaking books available or something.
Please see my reply to devanshpandey. Also, I edited that I was interested in seeing the math on standard deviations between universities.