If you admit 84% of people, but also feel like many people who you would like to have are turned off by the perception of a high admissions bar, wouldn’t it make sense to admit everyone (or have a default-admit policy that you stray from only in cases of extreme poor culture fit)?
I won’t quite say “worst case scenario is that there are an extra 16% of people there who you don’t like”, because the worst case scenario is that the marginal applicant lured in by the lack of an admissions bar is much worse than the current applicant pool, but it seems like something like that could be true (ie it doesn’t seem like there’s currently a large pool of unqualified applicants who it would overwhelm the conference to let in).
I understand your argument as: allowing anyone to attend would mean the event includes all the people currently approved, plus those deterred by the admissions bar, plus some attendees who we would have previously rejected. If that latter group is small (e.g., 16%), that might not have much of an effect, and the event reaches more of our target audience.
Here’s why we’re not confident in this reasoning:
Our primary concern is that removing the bar would significantly increase the volume of applications from people we’d otherwise reject, beyond the current number of applicants who are not approved (since there is no longer a cost to applying).
It’s unclear if removing it would draw in a sufficient number of “deterred” people, to make up for the other costs.
Much of the event’s impact comes from the quality of connections attendees make, whether through Swapcard or impromptu networking (lunches, meet ups, etc.). If the average attendee’s fit drops, we worry this would significantly reduce the expected quality of those interactions, especially impromptu ones. That could, in turn, have a greater negative impact than I think you’re imagining and worsening spin-off effects over time (e.g. attendees mingle less, senior professionals are less keen to attend over time).
Well said. Most business conferences are willing to accept anyone who is motivated to attend and pay the requisite fee. Why does EA appear to insist upon making the bar seem so high and exclusive, in that applicants need to be examined and judged in advance, with answers needing to comply with such a precise format? It seems strange that EA wants to try to keep people out but also is worried about falling numbers. If EA wants to increase attendance, simply make it easier to apply! This would certainly encourage me to apply, attend and contribute again, rather than feel I have to jump through hoops and maybe waste my time doing so, each time.
The acceptance rate being 84% makes me think that most admittees could be admitted using a less time-consuming application process. Maybe there could be some criteria that would allow someone to submit an abbreviated application if done by an early deadline, and receive either an admission or a request to submit the full application by the final deadline?
Hey Jason! This is a cool idea. At the same time, we face capacity constraints and aren’t always able to implement changes that would increase application review time or add more moving parts. In general, I’m wary of the application review process becoming too convoluted—I want to save people time, and also, I think it’s okay to ask people to fill out the application. Applicants are very welcome to use bullet points, the application doesn’t need to be long or polished by any means. The system should also save your responses from previous years, to save some time.
If you admit 84% of people, but also feel like many people who you would like to have are turned off by the perception of a high admissions bar, wouldn’t it make sense to admit everyone (or have a default-admit policy that you stray from only in cases of extreme poor culture fit)?
I won’t quite say “worst case scenario is that there are an extra 16% of people there who you don’t like”, because the worst case scenario is that the marginal applicant lured in by the lack of an admissions bar is much worse than the current applicant pool, but it seems like something like that could be true (ie it doesn’t seem like there’s currently a large pool of unqualified applicants who it would overwhelm the conference to let in).
Hey Scott, thanks for the comment!
I understand your argument as: allowing anyone to attend would mean the event includes all the people currently approved, plus those deterred by the admissions bar, plus some attendees who we would have previously rejected. If that latter group is small (e.g., 16%), that might not have much of an effect, and the event reaches more of our target audience.
Here’s why we’re not confident in this reasoning:
Our primary concern is that removing the bar would significantly increase the volume of applications from people we’d otherwise reject, beyond the current number of applicants who are not approved (since there is no longer a cost to applying).
It’s unclear if removing it would draw in a sufficient number of “deterred” people, to make up for the other costs.
Much of the event’s impact comes from the quality of connections attendees make, whether through Swapcard or impromptu networking (lunches, meet ups, etc.). If the average attendee’s fit drops, we worry this would significantly reduce the expected quality of those interactions, especially impromptu ones. That could, in turn, have a greater negative impact than I think you’re imagining and worsening spin-off effects over time (e.g. attendees mingle less, senior professionals are less keen to attend over time).
Well said. Most business conferences are willing to accept anyone who is motivated to attend and pay the requisite fee. Why does EA appear to insist upon making the bar seem so high and exclusive, in that applicants need to be examined and judged in advance, with answers needing to comply with such a precise format? It seems strange that EA wants to try to keep people out but also is worried about falling numbers. If EA wants to increase attendance, simply make it easier to apply! This would certainly encourage me to apply, attend and contribute again, rather than feel I have to jump through hoops and maybe waste my time doing so, each time.
The acceptance rate being 84% makes me think that most admittees could be admitted using a less time-consuming application process. Maybe there could be some criteria that would allow someone to submit an abbreviated application if done by an early deadline, and receive either an admission or a request to submit the full application by the final deadline?
Hey Jason! This is a cool idea. At the same time, we face capacity constraints and aren’t always able to implement changes that would increase application review time or add more moving parts. In general, I’m wary of the application review process becoming too convoluted—I want to save people time, and also, I think it’s okay to ask people to fill out the application. Applicants are very welcome to use bullet points, the application doesn’t need to be long or polished by any means. The system should also save your responses from previous years, to save some time.