I don’t think much can be said from a small number of data points. The admissions strategy could very well be “Get a lot of super early career people together with some really experienced EAs so they can provide mentoring”, for example. And this would be a valid decision, that we could debate the merits of, and maybe find good or bad. But there’d not be an obvious “mistake” about accepting undergrads and rejecting specific other people.
Disclosure: I also got rejected from EAG London this year, but did attend the one before and an EAGx.
(This is the “pro CEA” part of my opinion—see my top level comment for the other side)
I didn’t say that CEA’s admissions process was mistaken or bad. (In fact, I don’t believe that it’s bad!) I’m just sharing what may be relevant context for others’ thought and discussion on EA conference admissions.
Data point: in the three cases I know of, undergraduates with around 30–40 hours of engagement with EA ideas were accepted to EAG London 2022.
I don’t think much can be said from a small number of data points. The admissions strategy could very well be “Get a lot of super early career people together with some really experienced EAs so they can provide mentoring”, for example. And this would be a valid decision, that we could debate the merits of, and maybe find good or bad. But there’d not be an obvious “mistake” about accepting undergrads and rejecting specific other people.
Disclosure: I also got rejected from EAG London this year, but did attend the one before and an EAGx.
(This is the “pro CEA” part of my opinion—see my top level comment for the other side)
I didn’t say that CEA’s admissions process was mistaken or bad. (In fact, I don’t believe that it’s bad!) I’m just sharing what may be relevant context for others’ thought and discussion on EA conference admissions.