The primary metric used to assess grants at the end of the first year is the number of group members who apply for internships or graduate programs in priority areas and reach at least the interview stage. For subsequent years, the primary metric used to assess the grants is the number of group members who go on to work in priority areas.
This seems to assume most group members will be quite young. Is this expected? Desired? Depending on how much this is emphasized, it could be a turn-off to older members with established careers they’re unlikely to change.
Out of curiosity, was this metric selected by CEA, the groups, LEAN, or some combination?
Hi John, thanks for your comment (and sorry for the delay getting back to you)! These metrics were selected by CEA, but we gave current recipients the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed evaluation procedure.
We think that one of the main route to value of EA Groups is to cause people to change their career trajectory such that they end up contributing to solving some of the world’s most important problems. It does seem that people who are willing to make such changes are more likely to be younger, however there are a number of senior management positions (e.g. Chief of Staff, Chief Operating Officer etc) available within organisations that we would accredit that one could imagine would be more suitable for people more advanced in their careers.
As mentioned in the post, we don’t think career changes are the only route to value for EA Groups, and that there are likely ways in which people who are unlikely to change careers can contribute. Though given that we think career change is a major route to value, we’ve chosen to assess this specifically. We also hope to find out the extent of the value of contributions from individuals who don’t change their career by using a case-by-case, after-the-fact assessment.
Thanks for providing this writeup!
This seems to assume most group members will be quite young. Is this expected? Desired? Depending on how much this is emphasized, it could be a turn-off to older members with established careers they’re unlikely to change.
Out of curiosity, was this metric selected by CEA, the groups, LEAN, or some combination?
Hi John, thanks for your comment (and sorry for the delay getting back to you)! These metrics were selected by CEA, but we gave current recipients the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed evaluation procedure.
We think that one of the main route to value of EA Groups is to cause people to change their career trajectory such that they end up contributing to solving some of the world’s most important problems. It does seem that people who are willing to make such changes are more likely to be younger, however there are a number of senior management positions (e.g. Chief of Staff, Chief Operating Officer etc) available within organisations that we would accredit that one could imagine would be more suitable for people more advanced in their careers.
As mentioned in the post, we don’t think career changes are the only route to value for EA Groups, and that there are likely ways in which people who are unlikely to change careers can contribute. Though given that we think career change is a major route to value, we’ve chosen to assess this specifically. We also hope to find out the extent of the value of contributions from individuals who don’t change their career by using a case-by-case, after-the-fact assessment.