For UK universities (I see a few have EA clubs) - it is really weird that student volunteers receive individual funding. I think this applies to US as well but can’t be 100% sure:
UK student clubs fall under the banner of their respective student union, which is a charitable organisation to support the needs, interests and development of the students at the university. They have oversight of clubs, and a pot of money that clubs can access (i.e. they submit a budget for their running costs/events for the year and the union decides what is/isn’t reasonable and what it can/can’t fund). They also have a platform to promote all clubs through the union website, Freshers’ week, university brochures, etc.
Some external organisations sponsor clubs. This is usually to make up ‘gaps’ in funding from the union e.g. If a bank wanted to fund a finance club so they can provide free caviar and wine at all events to encourage students to attend, in return for their logo appearing in club newsletters, this makes sense; the union would not be funding the ‘caviar and wine’ line item in the budget as this is not considered essential to supporting the running of the finance club as per the union’s charitable aims (and they have 100s of clubs to fund).
Student clubs do really impressive things and often need support in achieving this e.g. if a club wanted to run a pan-London summer school to support widening access to STEM it’s likely this would be supported by the union and corporate sponsorship to cover costs. They can also access free support/time from student union staff on the operational/finance side. The students wouldn’t be paid to run the club though, and are often recognised for their extraordinary voluntary service in other ways e.g. student awards, etc.
The PETA program you linked to is paying individual students arrange ad-hoc protests etc on campuses, and will pay a reasonably small sum and provide materials to support that. It’s not under a banner of a student club (from what I can tell i.e. not Oxford PETA). It’s different than PETA paying Oxford PETA’s President $600 a semester just for being President. It also isn’t paying someone to set up the club or keep it going year-on-year by ensuring committee members (which should be based on enough students having an interest).
It seems OP was paid in his role as the latter i.e. to run a club at a university (a voluntary position). If so, I share OP’s assessment this is weird—there’s something about it which feels uncomfortable: wondering what people are being paid for, how they are selected, if this is a salary (with a contract and protections) or just a golden handshake, how that changes dynamics within the club, or potential conflicts of interest e.g. being asked to run an EA conference in finals week, how safe a student would feel in declining if they had accepted a large amount of money throughout the year.
I’m curious how much money these roles are attracting and if this changes between universities (even a ballpark figure would help)? I’d be curious to know if this is generally known at universities and what evidence there is this helps—personally, if I was back in Freshers’ Week and I came across an EA stall, it would markedly downgrade my estimation of EA to learn the otherwise ‘volunteer’ positions in other fantastic clubs were paid here i.e. I’m not seeing passionate students devoting their time to a cause they care about, it’s also/mainly a money-making venture (especially with OP’s description of ‘outrageous’). I’m perplexed why this is being done at all—EA could be funding conferences, retreats, etc without this type of ‘weird’, and surely there is sufficient interest within students to not have to pay volunteers.
[You’re not the only person to make this point, so please don’t think I’m challenging you personally as I pretty much agree with your stance on everything except for the ‘weirdness’ - I’ve just seen a few misconceptions in this thread about uni clubs and thought I could clear some up here vs a new comment.]
The UK has this too. But they are full-time employees, either taking a year off from their studies or in the year after they graduate. Open Phil pays a lot more than this.
Open Phil’s University Organizer Fellowship quotes the following ranges which may be useful as a ballpark:
Funding starting in the following ranges for full-time organizers, pro-rated for part-time organizers:
* In the US: $45,000 – $80,000 per year for undergraduates, and $60,000 – $95,000 per year for non-undergraduates (including those no longer at university).
In the UK: £31,800 – £47,800 per year for undergraduates, and £35,800 – £55,900 per year for non-undergraduates.
Funding amounts in other countries will be set according to cost-of-living and other location-specific factors. Exact funding amounts will depend on a number of factors, including city-specific cost-of-living, role, track record, and university.
Most grantees are “working 15 hours per week or less.”
For context, a UK graduate at their first job at a top 100 employer earns around £30,000 per year, which is pretty close to the national median salary. So these are well-paying jobs.
It’s always wild to me that English-speaking countries with seemingly competent people (like the UK and Singapore) pay their programmers 1⁄2 or less that of programmers in America. I still don’t understand the economics behind that.
As in, paying UK undergrads ~£50/hr (assuming they work 15 hours all year round, including in the very lengthy university holidays)? (!) Or am I missing something here?
It is “pro-rated for part-time organizers,” and most are part-time. In the US, proration is commonly done off of around 2000 hrs/year for full time, but I don’t know how Open Phil does it.
It’s a similar situation with at least some universities in Australia, with the added complication that club office-holders are elected by club members, so no conventional application process is allowed, and there’s always the chance that a random, non-CEA-vetted member will turn up and manage to win the election.
+1 to the the amount of money being really high relative to other clubs (and—importantly—other on campus jobs).
At my college (Haverford College, small liberal arts in the US) the only “club” that was paid (to my knowledge) was the environmental committee, and this was because 1) it was a committee which liaised with the other offices on campus (e.g. president’s office, arboretum, faculty) and it existed because 2) it was funded by an independent donor.
Only the org leaders were compensated and this was at the college-wide student rate of between $9-10 (depending on your work experience).
I don’t think $10/hour is a reasonable wage to pay anyone and other unis probably have a higher wages ($15, possibly higher?), but it gives you a sense of the discrepancy in pay for on-campus jobs and student organizers.
I think it’s reasonable to pay students higher wages during the summer where some students may have competitive offers from for-profit companies. I’d weight it higher if they are needs based (e.g. some schools like Haverford have a mandatory co-pay of ~$2500 a year, which many students earn during the summer).
For UK universities (I see a few have EA clubs) - it is really weird that student volunteers receive individual funding. I think this applies to US as well but can’t be 100% sure:
UK student clubs fall under the banner of their respective student union, which is a charitable organisation to support the needs, interests and development of the students at the university. They have oversight of clubs, and a pot of money that clubs can access (i.e. they submit a budget for their running costs/events for the year and the union decides what is/isn’t reasonable and what it can/can’t fund). They also have a platform to promote all clubs through the union website, Freshers’ week, university brochures, etc.
Some external organisations sponsor clubs. This is usually to make up ‘gaps’ in funding from the union e.g. If a bank wanted to fund a finance club so they can provide free caviar and wine at all events to encourage students to attend, in return for their logo appearing in club newsletters, this makes sense; the union would not be funding the ‘caviar and wine’ line item in the budget as this is not considered essential to supporting the running of the finance club as per the union’s charitable aims (and they have 100s of clubs to fund).
Student clubs do really impressive things and often need support in achieving this e.g. if a club wanted to run a pan-London summer school to support widening access to STEM it’s likely this would be supported by the union and corporate sponsorship to cover costs. They can also access free support/time from student union staff on the operational/finance side. The students wouldn’t be paid to run the club though, and are often recognised for their extraordinary voluntary service in other ways e.g. student awards, etc.
The PETA program you linked to is paying individual students arrange ad-hoc protests etc on campuses, and will pay a reasonably small sum and provide materials to support that. It’s not under a banner of a student club (from what I can tell i.e. not Oxford PETA). It’s different than PETA paying Oxford PETA’s President $600 a semester just for being President. It also isn’t paying someone to set up the club or keep it going year-on-year by ensuring committee members (which should be based on enough students having an interest).
It seems OP was paid in his role as the latter i.e. to run a club at a university (a voluntary position). If so, I share OP’s assessment this is weird—there’s something about it which feels uncomfortable: wondering what people are being paid for, how they are selected, if this is a salary (with a contract and protections) or just a golden handshake, how that changes dynamics within the club, or potential conflicts of interest e.g. being asked to run an EA conference in finals week, how safe a student would feel in declining if they had accepted a large amount of money throughout the year.
I’m curious how much money these roles are attracting and if this changes between universities (even a ballpark figure would help)? I’d be curious to know if this is generally known at universities and what evidence there is this helps—personally, if I was back in Freshers’ Week and I came across an EA stall, it would markedly downgrade my estimation of EA to learn the otherwise ‘volunteer’ positions in other fantastic clubs were paid here i.e. I’m not seeing passionate students devoting their time to a cause they care about, it’s also/mainly a money-making venture (especially with OP’s description of ‘outrageous’). I’m perplexed why this is being done at all—EA could be funding conferences, retreats, etc without this type of ‘weird’, and surely there is sufficient interest within students to not have to pay volunteers.
[You’re not the only person to make this point, so please don’t think I’m challenging you personally as I pretty much agree with your stance on everything except for the ‘weirdness’ - I’ve just seen a few misconceptions in this thread about uni clubs and thought I could clear some up here vs a new comment.]
In Australia it is the norm for student union leaders to be paid a decently large sum along the 20k to 30k range from memory.
The UK has this too. But they are full-time employees, either taking a year off from their studies or in the year after they graduate. Open Phil pays a lot more than this.
Yeah in Australia they don’t really do much having been friends with them.
Open Phil’s University Organizer Fellowship quotes the following ranges which may be useful as a ballpark:
Funding starting in the following ranges for full-time organizers, pro-rated for part-time organizers:
* In the US: $45,000 – $80,000 per year for undergraduates, and $60,000 – $95,000 per year for non-undergraduates (including those no longer at university).
In the UK: £31,800 – £47,800 per year for undergraduates, and £35,800 – £55,900 per year for non-undergraduates.
Funding amounts in other countries will be set according to cost-of-living and other location-specific factors. Exact funding amounts will depend on a number of factors, including city-specific cost-of-living, role, track record, and university.
Most grantees are “working 15 hours per week or less.”
For context, a UK graduate at their first job at a top 100 employer earns around £30,000 per year, which is pretty close to the national median salary. So these are well-paying jobs.
It’s always wild to me that English-speaking countries with seemingly competent people (like the UK and Singapore) pay their programmers 1⁄2 or less that of programmers in America. I still don’t understand the economics behind that.
As in, paying UK undergrads ~£50/hr (assuming they work 15 hours all year round, including in the very lengthy university holidays)? (!) Or am I missing something here?
It is “pro-rated for part-time organizers,” and most are part-time. In the US, proration is commonly done off of around 2000 hrs/year for full time, but I don’t know how Open Phil does it.
It’s a similar situation with at least some universities in Australia, with the added complication that club office-holders are elected by club members, so no conventional application process is allowed, and there’s always the chance that a random, non-CEA-vetted member will turn up and manage to win the election.
+1 to the the amount of money being really high relative to other clubs (and—importantly—other on campus jobs).
At my college (Haverford College, small liberal arts in the US) the only “club” that was paid (to my knowledge) was the environmental committee, and this was because 1) it was a committee which liaised with the other offices on campus (e.g. president’s office, arboretum, faculty) and it existed because 2) it was funded by an independent donor.
Only the org leaders were compensated and this was at the college-wide student rate of between $9-10 (depending on your work experience).
I don’t think $10/hour is a reasonable wage to pay anyone and other unis probably have a higher wages ($15, possibly higher?), but it gives you a sense of the discrepancy in pay for on-campus jobs and student organizers.
I think it’s reasonable to pay students higher wages during the summer where some students may have competitive offers from for-profit companies. I’d weight it higher if they are needs based (e.g. some schools like Haverford have a mandatory co-pay of ~$2500 a year, which many students earn during the summer).