The actual activities that the people in a fellowship engage in, like reading things and discussing them and socializing and doing giving games and so forth, don’t seem different from what a typical reading club or meetup group does. I am fine with all of these activities, and think they can be quite valuable.
So how are EA introductory fellowships different from a bare reading club or meetup group? My understanding is that the main differences are exclusivity and the branding. I’m not a fan of exclusivity in general, but especially dislike it when there doesn’t seem to be a good reason for it (e.g. why not just split the discussion into separate circles if there are too many people?) or where self-selection would have worked (e.g. making the content of the fellowship more difficult so that the less interested people will leave on their own). As for branding, I couldn’t find a reason why these groups are branded as “fellowships” in any of the pages or blog posts I looked at. But my guess is that it is a way to manufacture prestige for both the organizers/movement and for the participants. This kind of prestige-seeking seems pretty bad to me. (I can elaborate more on either point if you want to understand my reasoning.)
I haven’t spent too much time looking into these fellowships, so it’s quite possible I am misunderstanding something, and would be happy to be corrected.
I think the main difference is the commitment entailed by an introductory fellowship, due to having to apply and being accepted; you’re expected to continue showing up to sessions and let your facilitator know if you can’t make it. That way, attendance and enrollment are probably much higher than they would otherwise be. It doesn’t have to be exclusive; many smaller groups accept everyone who applies.
Based on some EA Forum comments I’ve read by Harvard EA members, you’re right that the term “fellowship” is intended to “manufacture prestige”. EA Oxford uses the term “seminar program” instead which I think gets the job done and is apparently less confusing to graduate students.
Interesting, could you say why you have a negative opinion of introductory fellowships?
The actual activities that the people in a fellowship engage in, like reading things and discussing them and socializing and doing giving games and so forth, don’t seem different from what a typical reading club or meetup group does. I am fine with all of these activities, and think they can be quite valuable.
So how are EA introductory fellowships different from a bare reading club or meetup group? My understanding is that the main differences are exclusivity and the branding. I’m not a fan of exclusivity in general, but especially dislike it when there doesn’t seem to be a good reason for it (e.g. why not just split the discussion into separate circles if there are too many people?) or where self-selection would have worked (e.g. making the content of the fellowship more difficult so that the less interested people will leave on their own). As for branding, I couldn’t find a reason why these groups are branded as “fellowships” in any of the pages or blog posts I looked at. But my guess is that it is a way to manufacture prestige for both the organizers/movement and for the participants. This kind of prestige-seeking seems pretty bad to me. (I can elaborate more on either point if you want to understand my reasoning.)
I haven’t spent too much time looking into these fellowships, so it’s quite possible I am misunderstanding something, and would be happy to be corrected.
I think the main difference is the commitment entailed by an introductory fellowship, due to having to apply and being accepted; you’re expected to continue showing up to sessions and let your facilitator know if you can’t make it. That way, attendance and enrollment are probably much higher than they would otherwise be. It doesn’t have to be exclusive; many smaller groups accept everyone who applies.
Based on some EA Forum comments I’ve read by Harvard EA members, you’re right that the term “fellowship” is intended to “manufacture prestige”. EA Oxford uses the term “seminar program” instead which I think gets the job done and is apparently less confusing to graduate students.
Setting expectations without making it exclusive seems good.
“Seminar program” or “seminar” or “reading group” or “intensive reading group” sound like good names to me.
I’m guessing there is a way to run such a group in a way that both you and I would be happy about.