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.
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: