I wanted to share my perspective as someone you personally reached out to about applying for a role. I invested several days in the process, preparing thoroughly and rearranging significant parts of my life, including obligations to my children, family and day job, because I was genuinely excited by the opportunity and your encouragement.
After being told I was a strong, referred candidate, I received an automated rejection email less than 48 hours after submitting my application. While I understand that rejection can be an inevitable part of the process, I found it extremely disappointing that my follow-up request for any feedback or context went unanswered. I reached out to you 3 times.
For candidates investing substantial time and hope, a lack of basic communication and transparency is discouraging, especially in a sector that values impact and integrity. I hope you’ll consider your own role into recruitment processes and candidate experiences can be improved going forward.
Thanks for the feedback! I definitely think that the EA hiring process for job seekers is terrible. Doing multiple work tests, long applications, etc is awful. I’d be especially excited to get rid of written prompts in job applications (which I think might be possible), and work tests (much harder). And I’m sorry that experience was so negative — I invite many people who look like strong fits on paper to apply for roles, and in most hiring rounds I work on, candidates are evaluated blindly, so it’s hard to perfectly tie these things together.
I couldn’t find your specific case, but if you bump the email, I’m happy to tell you why I didn’t provide feedback. In almost every case, it’s because I don’t think I have useful feedback to give people — I’m highly skeptical of most hiring evaluation methods, and think after reviewing someone’s application, I, at best, have only the very mildest sense of their skills. I also have found that the only useful advice I have for people looking for roles in EA organizations is advice on how to game hiring processes, so generally avoid doing so.
I relate to your experience. I think it would be helpful if the numbers passed through each round were clear at the start, or if candidates at each stage were told how many others are still in. That should help manage expectations. I think personal outreach shouldn’t happen unless the benefactor is going to put a number on it as well i.e ‘I think you are a strong candidate. You, and the 49 other people I sent this email to.’
It seems to me the general slant is to get as many people as possible excited about the prospect of a high-impact career, hype them up, then hope they stick around after rejection. That’s usually when E2G becomes the focus. From ‘career accelerator’ to ‘just donate your money from a different job instead’.
I wanted to share my perspective as someone you personally reached out to about applying for a role. I invested several days in the process, preparing thoroughly and rearranging significant parts of my life, including obligations to my children, family and day job, because I was genuinely excited by the opportunity and your encouragement.
After being told I was a strong, referred candidate, I received an automated rejection email less than 48 hours after submitting my application. While I understand that rejection can be an inevitable part of the process, I found it extremely disappointing that my follow-up request for any feedback or context went unanswered. I reached out to you 3 times.
For candidates investing substantial time and hope, a lack of basic communication and transparency is discouraging, especially in a sector that values impact and integrity. I hope you’ll consider your own role into recruitment processes and candidate experiences can be improved going forward.
Thanks for the feedback! I definitely think that the EA hiring process for job seekers is terrible. Doing multiple work tests, long applications, etc is awful. I’d be especially excited to get rid of written prompts in job applications (which I think might be possible), and work tests (much harder). And I’m sorry that experience was so negative — I invite many people who look like strong fits on paper to apply for roles, and in most hiring rounds I work on, candidates are evaluated blindly, so it’s hard to perfectly tie these things together.
I couldn’t find your specific case, but if you bump the email, I’m happy to tell you why I didn’t provide feedback. In almost every case, it’s because I don’t think I have useful feedback to give people — I’m highly skeptical of most hiring evaluation methods, and think after reviewing someone’s application, I, at best, have only the very mildest sense of their skills. I also have found that the only useful advice I have for people looking for roles in EA organizations is advice on how to game hiring processes, so generally avoid doing so.
I relate to your experience. I think it would be helpful if the numbers passed through each round were clear at the start, or if candidates at each stage were told how many others are still in. That should help manage expectations. I think personal outreach shouldn’t happen unless the benefactor is going to put a number on it as well i.e ‘I think you are a strong candidate. You, and the 49 other people I sent this email to.’
It seems to me the general slant is to get as many people as possible excited about the prospect of a high-impact career, hype them up, then hope they stick around after rejection. That’s usually when E2G becomes the focus. From ‘career accelerator’ to ‘just donate your money from a different job instead’.