Sincere scout mindset here: I’m trying hard to grok your comment, and I don’t follow you. Would you mind clarifying a couple things?
A. Backdrop
Before that, let me restate my concerns. I worry that some folks don’t realize what Constance’s story might imply for the rest of EA.
A.1. Perceptions of Exclusivity
First, for other EA’s trying to get involved with other EA orgs, the degree of selectivity is unclear, and Constance’s story may cause them (like I am doing now) to believe that other EA opportunities are roughly as selective as EAG, which may or may not be correct.
If EA(G) rejects a doctor who tries really really hard to attend (and pay for) a conference, I wonder whether the Rest-of-Us™ are wasting our time by applying for EA jobs/grants.
(Not just EAG: also EA jobs, EA grants, etc. Not just doctors: also engineers, managers, freelance editors, etc.)
A.2. Danger of Exclusivity
Second, though admittedly somewhat off-topic, I do not think EA should be exclusive.
B. My Confusion
Now, my questions about your comment and some preliminary guesses and responses.
B.1. Public Criticism
People are unwilling to provide [individual differences used to determine admission][1], because they both strongly are counter to the narrative of the post (and the highly upvoted SA post)[2] and involve a public criticism of a person.
You mean, as a way to clarify Constance’s case? If so, I don’t see that as the goal of the discussion, so maybe we agree about that part?
Constance is a rare exception of someone who tried really hard to understand why she got rejected and was willing to share heaps of private stuff. I admire her for that, and I agree we don’t need more public criticism of her.
The way I see it, Constance’s story is the tip of the iceberg, a symptom, if you will, of a bigger problem.[3] Most people are not bold enough to share these details online nor are motivated enough to aggressively pursue an explanation for their rejection. Therefore my comment isn’t about whether she, specifically, should qualify for EAG.
B.2. More Candor
If this discussion was more candid and complete, these would reduce concerns like yours.
Maybe, maybe not.
Yes, it would be nice to know why I have been rejected for EA jobs[4] for which I am qualified and deeply passionate. Yes, that might help others who have been rejected by other EA orgs. However, I’m not posting here to learn why I personally was excluded.
Rather, I’m worried that if EAG doesn’t accept people like Constance, then the job pool might be similarly exclusive, and thousands of EA’s like me are wasting our time applying for jobs. We’ve been hearing since at least 2015 that there’s sufficient funding and a shortage of people with specific skills. When passionate EA’s hear that; find job postings for which their skills are relevant; apply; and get rejected for unclear reasons, they’re forced to reinterpret EA’s message to them:
“We are so talent constraint… (20 applications later) … Yeah, when we said that we need people, we meant capable people. Not you. You suck.”
B.3. Systematic Explanation about Admissions
a more systemic explanation about admissions, would need to describe/imply the quality curve about the supply of candidates (which no one completely is sure of) and is bad optics/implies eliteness/makes everyone rejected feel bad
The optics, implied eliteness, and feelings of rejection are already quite bad. If you’re referring to the perceptions of people who haven’t YET been rejected, well, those are the people that I most worry about. They deserve reasonable expectations about their chances BEFORE they get their hopes up.
I hope that EA is more accessible than I now believe, and I do NOT believe that 80K and EAG are deliberately signalling more accessibility than actually exists.
Fín 🥲
I could be wrong about the whole exclusivity thing. In trying to be a scout, I opened my comment as a question: How selective are EA jobs?
Like many others have expressed, I want EA to be much more accessible. I hope I’m wrong about the current level of inaccessibility, but either way hopefully we can clear that up a bit.
I’m sad about the state of things, but please know that I deeply respect and value all of you. We’re all just doing our best.
Post-script
(because I couldn’t figure out how to put this in a footnote.)
Here’s what I got back from my last EA org rejection:
We’ve reviewed your submission and, unfortunately, won’t be moving forward with your application.
We received a number of very strong applications and are moving forward with a select few candidates to the next stage of the process.
At least the org before that permitted me an interview, though I have no idea why they passed me up either.
I don’t hold this against either of them. Hiring is hard; I’ve been there.
Sorry @ConstanceLi, by “iceberg” and “symptom,” I swear I don’t mean to imply that you weigh thousands of tons, nor do I mean to put you in the same category as boogery noses and back acne.
In your grand parent comment, I interpreted what you said, as that you had beliefs/concerns about exclusivity and competitiveness, driven by the case of one individual.
I wrote suggesting that there were other considerations for this case, and this one case alone shouldn’t produce these beliefs.
I think in your new comment you’re saying this one individual case wouldn’t affect your beliefs. Then, my original comment doesn’t apply and I don’t have anything useful to say.
That’s an incorrect summary of my comments, which is NOT your fault, rather it’s my fault for not finding a way to express myself clearly. I know you’re just sharing your interpretation of my comments, which is helpful feedback for my writing. I want to correct the record on two things:
This case isn’t cause for update?
you’re saying this one individual case wouldn’t affect your beliefs.
To the contrary, I have updated my beliefs based on Constance’s story, and I believe that others will do similarly, particularly absent an answer to the question about EA job selectivity. From my original comment:
If EA(G) rejects a doctor who tries really really hard to attend (and pay for) a conference, I wonder whether the Rest-of-Us™ are wasting our time by applying for EA jobs/grants… For now, I have updated towards believing that most EA opportunities (e.g., 80K job board postings) aren’t accessible to me.
From my second comment:
The way I see it, Constance’s story is the tip of the iceberg, a symptom, if you will, of a bigger problem… I’m worried that if EAG doesn’t accept people like Constance, then the job pool might be similarly exclusive, and thousands of EA’s like me are wasting our time applying for jobs.
Just one case?
you had beliefs/concerns about exclusivity and competitiveness, driven by the case of one individual
I agree that as a general rule one shouldn’t update drastically on the basis of a single anecdote. However, the issue of EA exclusivity is not new, so my original point still stands whether or not I was aware of the other data points. Still, FWIW, I did mention more evidence in that original comment:
I now have some explanation for why I have been rejected for jobs that I’m plenty qualified for on paper. The competition must be substantially stiffer than I thought.
Sincere scout mindset here: I’m trying hard to grok your comment, and I don’t follow you. Would you mind clarifying a couple things?
A. Backdrop
Before that, let me restate my concerns. I worry that some folks don’t realize what Constance’s story might imply for the rest of EA.
A.1. Perceptions of Exclusivity
First, for other EA’s trying to get involved with other EA orgs, the degree of selectivity is unclear, and Constance’s story may cause them (like I am doing now) to believe that other EA opportunities are roughly as selective as EAG, which may or may not be correct.
(Not just EAG: also EA jobs, EA grants, etc. Not just doctors: also engineers, managers, freelance editors, etc.)
A.2. Danger of Exclusivity
Second, though admittedly somewhat off-topic, I do not think EA should be exclusive.
B. My Confusion
Now, my questions about your comment and some preliminary guesses and responses.
B.1. Public Criticism
You mean, as a way to clarify Constance’s case? If so, I don’t see that as the goal of the discussion, so maybe we agree about that part?
Constance is a rare exception of someone who tried really hard to understand why she got rejected and was willing to share heaps of private stuff. I admire her for that, and I agree we don’t need more public criticism of her.
The way I see it, Constance’s story is the tip of the iceberg, a symptom, if you will, of a bigger problem.[3] Most people are not bold enough to share these details online nor are motivated enough to aggressively pursue an explanation for their rejection. Therefore my comment isn’t about whether she, specifically, should qualify for EAG.
B.2. More Candor
Maybe, maybe not.
Yes, it would be nice to know why I have been rejected for EA jobs[4] for which I am qualified and deeply passionate. Yes, that might help others who have been rejected by other EA orgs. However, I’m not posting here to learn why I personally was excluded.
Rather, I’m worried that if EAG doesn’t accept people like Constance, then the job pool might be similarly exclusive, and thousands of EA’s like me are wasting our time applying for jobs. We’ve been hearing since at least 2015 that there’s sufficient funding and a shortage of people with specific skills. When passionate EA’s hear that; find job postings for which their skills are relevant; apply; and get rejected for unclear reasons, they’re forced to reinterpret EA’s message to them:
B.3. Systematic Explanation about Admissions
The optics, implied eliteness, and feelings of rejection are already quite bad. If you’re referring to the perceptions of people who haven’t YET been rejected, well, those are the people that I most worry about. They deserve reasonable expectations about their chances BEFORE they get their hopes up.
I hope that EA is more accessible than I now believe, and I do NOT believe that 80K and EAG are deliberately signalling more accessibility than actually exists.
Fín 🥲
I could be wrong about the whole exclusivity thing. In trying to be a scout, I opened my comment as a question: How selective are EA jobs?
Like many others have expressed, I want EA to be much more accessible. I hope I’m wrong about the current level of inaccessibility, but either way hopefully we can clear that up a bit.
I’m sad about the state of things, but please know that I deeply respect and value all of you. We’re all just doing our best.
Post-script
(because I couldn’t figure out how to put this in a footnote.)
Here’s what I got back from my last EA org rejection:
At least the org before that permitted me an interview, though I have no idea why they passed me up either.
I don’t hold this against either of them. Hiring is hard; I’ve been there.
I took a guess as to what “the above” refers to
what narrative? that EA/EAG should be more accessible? Or, is this not particularly important to your point?
Sorry @ConstanceLi, by “iceberg” and “symptom,” I swear I don’t mean to imply that you weigh thousands of tons, nor do I mean to put you in the same category as boogery noses and back acne.
I couldn’t figure out how to put this in a footnote: see post-script at the end for the rejection message I received
In your grand parent comment, I interpreted what you said, as that you had beliefs/concerns about exclusivity and competitiveness, driven by the case of one individual.
I wrote suggesting that there were other considerations for this case, and this one case alone shouldn’t produce these beliefs.
I think in your new comment you’re saying this one individual case wouldn’t affect your beliefs. Then, my original comment doesn’t apply and I don’t have anything useful to say.
That’s an incorrect summary of my comments, which is NOT your fault, rather it’s my fault for not finding a way to express myself clearly. I know you’re just sharing your interpretation of my comments, which is helpful feedback for my writing. I want to correct the record on two things:
This case isn’t cause for update?
To the contrary, I have updated my beliefs based on Constance’s story, and I believe that others will do similarly, particularly absent an answer to the question about EA job selectivity. From my original comment:
From my second comment:
Just one case?
I agree that as a general rule one shouldn’t update drastically on the basis of a single anecdote. However, the issue of EA exclusivity is not new, so my original point still stands whether or not I was aware of the other data points. Still, FWIW, I did mention more evidence in that original comment: