One type of “credible signal of fit” is referrals, statements, etc. from people who have gained info on an aspiring/junior’s skills, knowledge, interests, etc. I’m unsure how much this matters, but here are some notes on that. (I put these notes in a comment because they’re not especially important or well-informed.)
I think there are two main reasons why things like referrals could help people get jobs they should get, when otherwise they wouldn’t:
Some EA-aligned orgs do network-based hiring rather than open hiring rounds. Someone who knows about a network-based hiring round and knows about the skills, knowledge, interests, etc. of some aspiring/junior researchers could recommend those researchers to the org that’s hiring.
(Some non-EA-aligned orgs also do network based hiring, but realistically someone involved in running a relevant intervention probably won’t know when those orgs are doing those hiring rounds, and those orgs might not care about the person’s recommendations anyway.)
Even open hiring rounds often don’t get applications from certain people who’d be great for the role, because those people hadn’t heard of it, ruled themselves out as a bad fit, or didn’t know if it was worth the time to apply.
People who have info on an aspiring/junior researcher’s fit could recommend that that aspiring/junior researcher applies to a potentially fitting thing.
Or they could tell various orgs about what this aspiring/junior researcher seems like a fit for, so that the orgs can reach out if and when appropriate.
But I think that those points are probably not very important, because:
Open hiring rounds are more common than network-based hiring (I think?), and my tentative independent impression is that network-based hiring should perhaps be even rarer than it is (I’m pretty unsure of that, though).
Someone who’d be a great fit for something might have a decent chance of being recommended to it for some other reason, even if the people running a relevant intervention don’t recommend them?
E.g., the person might do great in a work test for some other org, and have their name passed along by that org
I think a similar set of four points could perhaps be made about funding, collaborations, etc., rather than jobs?
Additionally, things like referrals could reduce the time cost required by others in order to find or vet aspiring/junior researchers for roles/projects, and could perhaps make it less likely that aspiring/junior researchers get future roles/projects that they shouldn’t get (which could be good both for those aspiring/junior researchers and for the world; see also).
One type of “credible signal of fit” is referrals, statements, etc. from people who have gained info on an aspiring/junior’s skills, knowledge, interests, etc. I’m unsure how much this matters, but here are some notes on that. (I put these notes in a comment because they’re not especially important or well-informed.)
I think there are two main reasons why things like referrals could help people get jobs they should get, when otherwise they wouldn’t:
Some EA-aligned orgs do network-based hiring rather than open hiring rounds. Someone who knows about a network-based hiring round and knows about the skills, knowledge, interests, etc. of some aspiring/junior researchers could recommend those researchers to the org that’s hiring.
(Some non-EA-aligned orgs also do network based hiring, but realistically someone involved in running a relevant intervention probably won’t know when those orgs are doing those hiring rounds, and those orgs might not care about the person’s recommendations anyway.)
Even open hiring rounds often don’t get applications from certain people who’d be great for the role, because those people hadn’t heard of it, ruled themselves out as a bad fit, or didn’t know if it was worth the time to apply.
People who have info on an aspiring/junior researcher’s fit could recommend that that aspiring/junior researcher applies to a potentially fitting thing.
Or they could tell various orgs about what this aspiring/junior researcher seems like a fit for, so that the orgs can reach out if and when appropriate.
But I think that those points are probably not very important, because:
Open hiring rounds are more common than network-based hiring (I think?), and my tentative independent impression is that network-based hiring should perhaps be even rarer than it is (I’m pretty unsure of that, though).
Someone who’d be a great fit for something might have a decent chance of being recommended to it for some other reason, even if the people running a relevant intervention don’t recommend them?
E.g., the person might do great in a work test for some other org, and have their name passed along by that org
I think a similar set of four points could perhaps be made about funding, collaborations, etc., rather than jobs?
Additionally, things like referrals could reduce the time cost required by others in order to find or vet aspiring/junior researchers for roles/projects, and could perhaps make it less likely that aspiring/junior researchers get future roles/projects that they shouldn’t get (which could be good both for those aspiring/junior researchers and for the world; see also).