Imagine a junior level role in gov’t where you’re 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 you’re good.
To be clear, even in the world where you’re good, a major source of impact of this role is career capital.
It’s rude to the partners with whom 80k is working to say “your org is not impactful, we’re sending people to you with the understanding that they’ll build career capital and leave”.
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 “we think this org is impactful but not our top in terms of [our complicated calculation]” isn’t something that I think a non-EA org would be insulted about.
Saying “you’ll learn a lot there that can help you in the rest of your career” might even be considered positive by such organizations.
(I’m not jumping to my actual proposed solutions because (A) I’m trying to keep the post focused, and (B) I’d like to wait for 80k’s comment, which I expect they’ll write soon, and might address what you (JP) wrote)
It’s rude to the partners with whom 80k is working to say “your org is not impactful, we’re sending people to you with the understanding that they’ll build career capital and leave”.
See 80k’s response, which I interpret as “they are willing to be ‘rude’ and say that an org isn’t top recommended”
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 doesn’t 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 gov’t where you’re 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 you’re good.
To be clear, even in the world where you’re good, a major source of impact of this role is career capital.
It’s rude to the partners with whom 80k is working to say “your org is not impactful, we’re sending people to you with the understanding that they’ll build career capital and leave”.
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 “we think this org is impactful but not our top in terms of [our complicated calculation]” isn’t something that I think a non-EA org would be insulted about.
Saying “you’ll learn a lot there that can help you in the rest of your career” might even be considered positive by such organizations.
(I’m not jumping to my actual proposed solutions because (A) I’m trying to keep the post focused, and (B) I’d like to wait for 80k’s comment, which I expect they’ll write soon, and might address what you (JP) wrote)
JP, regarding your point 3:
See 80k’s response, which I interpret as “they are willing to be ‘rude’ and say that an org isn’t top recommended”
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/YCMgg6x6zWJmran5L/criticism-of-the-80k-job-board-listing-strategy?commentId=zZHtmpFRXGg8SK43b
I endorse their approach here
Building career capital doesn’t 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.