I just looked at the application for the role of content specialist for CEA, which seems to involve a lot of working on this forum.
I noticed that if one indicates they have been personally referred by someone āinvolved in effective altruismā, one is given the option to skip āthe rest of the applicationā - which seems like the majority of the substantive information one is asked to give.
This seems overtly nepotistic, and I canāt think of a good reason for itācan anyone give one?
The rest of the application seems to be optional also if one indicates that they have not been personally referred by someone. Do you get something different?
Oh I see, thanks! - I didnāt realise this because the statement that appears after indicating youāve been personally referred is: āSince you were referred to this position, the rest of the application is optionalā which makes it sound like it wouldnāt be optional if you werenāt referred.
I think that the short hand of āthis person vouches for this other personā is a good enough basis for a lot of pre-screening criteria. Not that it makes the person a shoe in for the job, but itās enough to say that you can go by on a referral.
You might say, this is a strange way to pick people, but this is how governments interview people for national security roles. They check references. They ask questions.
I imagine more questions would be asked to the third party who is āpersonally referringā the applicant, leading to a slightly different series of interviews anyway. In my experience, people have to work a lot harder to get a job, than to keep one. I know that itās true with everyone that referred me to just about every position. Then if I perform badly it looks poorly on them, but after a certain time, Iām the one referring people onwards, so I have to make my own assessment of if Iām willing to put my reputation on the line.
a) The purpose of the rest of the questions is to inform the initial sift, and not later stages of the application, and if you have been referred by a trusted colleague, then there is no further use of the optional questions to the initial sift, so it would be a waste of applicantsā time
b) Saving applicantsā time on the initial application makes you likely to receive more applications to choose from
However, these referrals could indeed have a nepotistic effect by allowing networking to have more of an influence on the ease of getting to stage 2.
I was referred to apply to this job by someone who was close to another hiring round I was in (where I reached the final stage but didnāt get an offer).
I can see that this does not feel great from a nepotism angle. However, as Weaver mentions the initial application is only a very rough pre-screening, and for that, a recommendation might tip the scales (and that might be fine).
Reasons why this is not a problem:
First, expanding on Weavers argument:
I think that the short hand of āthis person vouches for this other personā is a good enough basis for a lot of pre-screening criteria. Not that it makes the person a shoe in for the job, but itās enough to say that you can go by on a referral.
If the application process is similar to other jobs in the EA world, it will probably involve 2-4 work trials, 1-2 interviews, and potentially an on-site work trial before the final offer is made. The reference maybe gets an applicant over the hurdle of the first written application, but wonāt be a factor in the evaluation of the work trials and interviews. So it really does not influence their chances too much.
Secondly, speaking of how I update on referrals: I donāt think most referrals are super strong endorsements by the person referring, and one should not update on them too much. I.e. most referrals are not of the type āI have thought about this for a couple of hours, worked with the person a lot in the last year, and think they will be an excellent fit for this roleā, but rather āI had a chat with this person, or I know them from somewhere and thought they might have a 5%-10% chance of getting the job so I recommended they applyā.
Other reasons why this could be bad: 1. The hiring manager might be slightly biased and keep them in the process longer than they ought to (However, I do not think this would be enough to turn a ānot above the bar for hiringā person into the ātop three candidateā person). Note that this is also bad for the applicant as they will spend more time on the application process than they should.
2. The applicant might rely too much on the name they put down, and half-ass the rest of the application, but in case the hiring manager does not know the reference, they might be rejected, although their non-half-assed application would have been good.
I just looked at the application for the role of content specialist for CEA, which seems to involve a lot of working on this forum.
I noticed that if one indicates they have been personally referred by someone āinvolved in effective altruismā, one is given the option to skip āthe rest of the applicationā - which seems like the majority of the substantive information one is asked to give.
This seems overtly nepotistic, and I canāt think of a good reason for itācan anyone give one?
The rest of the application seems to be optional also if one indicates that they have not been personally referred by someone. Do you get something different?
https://āāwww.loom.com/āāshare/āāc0ef87a96a1c4d28bfc0df2e48d7662b
Oh I see, thanks! - I didnāt realise this because the statement that appears after indicating youāve been personally referred is: āSince you were referred to this position, the rest of the application is optionalā which makes it sound like it wouldnāt be optional if you werenāt referred.
I think that the short hand of āthis person vouches for this other personā is a good enough basis for a lot of pre-screening criteria. Not that it makes the person a shoe in for the job, but itās enough to say that you can go by on a referral.
You might say, this is a strange way to pick people, but this is how governments interview people for national security roles. They check references. They ask questions.
I imagine more questions would be asked to the third party who is āpersonally referringā the applicant, leading to a slightly different series of interviews anyway. In my experience, people have to work a lot harder to get a job, than to keep one. I know that itās true with everyone that referred me to just about every position. Then if I perform badly it looks poorly on them, but after a certain time, Iām the one referring people onwards, so I have to make my own assessment of if Iām willing to put my reputation on the line.
Yeah but I think it relies too much on a given applicantās estimate of how well CEA knows or how much they trust the connection.
Some reasons could be
a) The purpose of the rest of the questions is to inform the initial sift, and not later stages of the application, and if you have been referred by a trusted colleague, then there is no further use of the optional questions to the initial sift, so it would be a waste of applicantsā time
b) Saving applicantsā time on the initial application makes you likely to receive more applications to choose from
However, these referrals could indeed have a nepotistic effect by allowing networking to have more of an influence on the ease of getting to stage 2.
I was referred to apply to this job by someone who was close to another hiring round I was in (where I reached the final stage but didnāt get an offer).
I can see that this does not feel great from a nepotism angle. However, as Weaver mentions the initial application is only a very rough pre-screening, and for that, a recommendation might tip the scales (and that might be fine).
Reasons why this is not a problem:
First, expanding on Weavers argument:
If the application process is similar to other jobs in the EA world, it will probably involve 2-4 work trials, 1-2 interviews, and potentially an on-site work trial before the final offer is made. The reference maybe gets an applicant over the hurdle of the first written application, but wonāt be a factor in the evaluation of the work trials and interviews. So it really does not influence their chances too much.
Secondly, speaking of how I update on referrals: I donāt think most referrals are super strong endorsements by the person referring, and one should not update on them too much. I.e. most referrals are not of the type āI have thought about this for a couple of hours, worked with the person a lot in the last year, and think they will be an excellent fit for this roleā, but rather āI had a chat with this person, or I know them from somewhere and thought they might have a 5%-10% chance of getting the job so I recommended they applyā.
Other reasons why this could be bad:
1. The hiring manager might be slightly biased and keep them in the process longer than they ought to (However, I do not think this would be enough to turn a ānot above the bar for hiringā person into the ātop three candidateā person). Note that this is also bad for the applicant as they will spend more time on the application process than they should.
2. The applicant might rely too much on the name they put down, and half-ass the rest of the application, but in case the hiring manager does not know the reference, they might be rejected, although their non-half-assed application would have been good.