In a couple weeks, Iāll publish a post on āIntervention options for improving the EA-aligned research pipelineā (as part of this sequence). One of the interventions I discuss there lines up well with some things you mention, so Iāll share here the draft of the section on that intervention, in case itās of interest to you or some readers:
Increasing and/āor improving EAsā use of non-EA options for research training, credentials, etc.
Non-EA options for research training, credentials, etc. include:
Masters programs
PhD programs
online courses
various ābootcampsā
internships at think tanks
internships in politics or civil service
other jobs
Ways to increase and/āor improve EAsā use of such things could include:
Simply encouraging this
Helping guide people to examples of these things that are high-quality and suited to their needs
E.g., via recommendation lists
E.g., via 1-1 advice
E.g., via things like 80,000 Hoursā articles
Providing scholarships or grants specifically to support the use of these options for training, credentials, etc.
Regarding why this might be useful:
One commenter on a draft of this post wrote āI think academia developed the PhD process for a reason. IMO this is where most of the value in creating top notch researchers lies.ā
Iād add that academia can also award or deny various credentials, which can then be considered as an aide to vetting (e.g., during EA-aligned hiring or grantmaking processes by EA orgs/āfunders)^[Of course, those credentials arenāt perfect proxies for what vetters care about. But the same is true of other proxies as well, and it seems clear that academia-related credentials might add some value in some vetting processes.]
Another commenter on a draft of this post wrote āI agree, and I think that it would generally be best if people wonāt need EAs to skill them up in research skills (as this is costly and is available outside of EA).ā
[Edit: Actually, Iāve just had a really interesting conversation about concrete options for actually doing this well which I donāt think are widely discussed, so I think Iāll expand that section into its own mini post on the topic. Iāll comment here once Iāve done so, since that could provide more ideas on next steps for readers of your post.]
Iāve now turned that section into a standalone draft post. Iāll post it in ~2 or 3 weeks, but if people want to read the draft sooner than that, they can do so here.
In a couple weeks, Iāll publish a post on āIntervention options for improving the EA-aligned research pipelineā (as part of this sequence). One of the interventions I discuss there lines up well with some things you mention, so Iāll share here the draft of the section on that intervention, in case itās of interest to you or some readers:
Increasing and/āor improving EAsā use of non-EA options for research training, credentials, etc.
Non-EA options for research training, credentials, etc. include:
Masters programs
PhD programs
online courses
various ābootcampsā
internships at think tanks
internships in politics or civil service
other jobs
Ways to increase and/āor improve EAsā use of such things could include:
Simply encouraging this
Helping guide people to examples of these things that are high-quality and suited to their needs
E.g., via recommendation lists
E.g., via 1-1 advice
E.g., via things like 80,000 Hoursā articles
Providing scholarships or grants specifically to support the use of these options for training, credentials, etc.
Regarding why this might be useful:
One commenter on a draft of this post wrote āI think academia developed the PhD process for a reason. IMO this is where most of the value in creating top notch researchers lies.ā
Iād add that academia can also award or deny various credentials, which can then be considered as an aide to vetting (e.g., during EA-aligned hiring or grantmaking processes by EA orgs/āfunders)^[Of course, those credentials arenāt perfect proxies for what vetters care about. But the same is true of other proxies as well, and it seems clear that academia-related credentials might add some value in some vetting processes.]
Another commenter on a draft of this post wrote āI agree, and I think that it would generally be best if people wonāt need EAs to skill them up in research skills (as this is costly and is available outside of EA).ā
[Edit: Actually, Iāve just had a really interesting conversation about concrete options for actually doing this well which I donāt think are widely discussed, so I think Iāll expand that section into its own mini post on the topic. Iāll comment here once Iāve done so, since that could provide more ideas on next steps for readers of your post.]
Iāve now turned that section into a standalone draft post. Iāll post it in ~2 or 3 weeks, but if people want to read the draft sooner than that, they can do so here.