It’s hard to assess what counts as a good eg. career, which pushes in the direction of non-standard career options being discounted, often it may make sense for someone to focus on building career capital over working at an EA organisation, but these kinds of things are less obviously/​ legibly impactful…
I agree with the general gist, but my impression is that organisations that focus on career changes and grantmakers have high epistemic humility. When looking at meta organisations focussing on career change, most seem not to break down the changes into types in their quantitative analysis. This leads to a greater focus on case studies where different aspects like prior achievements and unusual career paths can be explained. I assume there is some signalling going on between grantmakers and group organisers where a low-fidelity version might point to standard options, whereas thoughtful grantmakers showcasing a wider variety of pathways as potentially impactful can make a difference.
I agree with the general gist, but my impression is that organisations that focus on career changes and grantmakers have high epistemic humility. When looking at meta organisations focussing on career change, most seem not to break down the changes into types in their quantitative analysis. This leads to a greater focus on case studies where different aspects like prior achievements and unusual career paths can be explained. I assume there is some signalling going on between grantmakers and group organisers where a low-fidelity version might point to standard options, whereas thoughtful grantmakers showcasing a wider variety of pathways as potentially impactful can make a difference.