Imagine a junior level role in govât where youâre working on writing documents about emerging technology that no one important will read. Some things that would seem to my quick thoughts to make this hard:
This job will initially not have much direct impact, but will ramp up if youâre good.
To be clear, even in the world where youâre good, a major source of impact of this role is career capital.
Itâs rude to the partners with whom 80k is working to say âyour org is not impactful, weâre sending people to you with the understanding that theyâll build career capital and leaveâ.
I have lots of thoughts and some suggested solutions for this, but my main pushback is that sending someone to that kind of role for that goal without giving them this context is problematic.
Saying âwe think this org is impactful but not our top in terms of [our complicated calculation]â isnât something that I think a non-EA org would be insulted about.
Saying âyouâll learn a lot there that can help you in the rest of your careerâ might even be considered positive by such organizations.
(Iâm not jumping to my actual proposed solutions because (A) Iâm trying to keep the post focused, and (B) Iâd like to wait for 80kâs comment, which I expect theyâll write soon, and might address what you (JP) wrote)
Itâs rude to the partners with whom 80k is working to say âyour org is not impactful, weâre sending people to you with the understanding that theyâll build career capital and leaveâ.
See 80kâs response, which I interpret as âthey are willing to be ârudeâ and say that an org isnât top recommendedâ
We plan to visually distinguish between orgs on our top recommended list (which we think are the most promising places to work in each problem area) and other orgs we list.
Building career capital doesnât automatically mean leaving. If we take the example of the junior-level role in government, building career capital means being able to access senior roles in government in the future instead of leaving.
Imagine a junior level role in govât where youâre working on writing documents about emerging technology that no one important will read. Some things that would seem to my quick thoughts to make this hard:
This job will initially not have much direct impact, but will ramp up if youâre good.
To be clear, even in the world where youâre good, a major source of impact of this role is career capital.
Itâs rude to the partners with whom 80k is working to say âyour org is not impactful, weâre sending people to you with the understanding that theyâll build career capital and leaveâ.
I have lots of thoughts and some suggested solutions for this, but my main pushback is that sending someone to that kind of role for that goal without giving them this context is problematic.
My secondary pushbacks are
Saying âwe think this org is impactful but not our top in terms of [our complicated calculation]â isnât something that I think a non-EA org would be insulted about.
Saying âyouâll learn a lot there that can help you in the rest of your careerâ might even be considered positive by such organizations.
(Iâm not jumping to my actual proposed solutions because (A) Iâm trying to keep the post focused, and (B) Iâd like to wait for 80kâs comment, which I expect theyâll write soon, and might address what you (JP) wrote)
JP, regarding your point 3:
See 80kâs response, which I interpret as âthey are willing to be ârudeâ and say that an org isnât top recommendedâ
https://ââforum.effectivealtruism.org/ââposts/ââYCMgg6x6zWJmran5L/ââcriticism-of-the-80k-job-board-listing-strategy?commentId=zZHtmpFRXGg8SK43b
I endorse their approach here
Building career capital doesnât automatically mean leaving. If we take the example of the junior-level role in government, building career capital means being able to access senior roles in government in the future instead of leaving.