Penn EA organizer here! Thanks for raising this discussion, Aaron. Penn EA paid intro fellows $500 this semester, and we plan to write-up a reflection soon. For now, though, I have a few quick thoughts on the points you raised:
1.1-- This seems quite reasonable. Does this require paying everyone, or just having an optional financial aid policy? I suppose people might feel bad applying for financial aid, especially from a group focused on altruism.
1.2-- I actually see this as an argument against paying fellows. I think one common failure mode of fellowships is that you end up with groups where like 1 person is engaged and 3-5 people are clearly not engaged. After week 2 or 3, I would love it if we just said “hey, if you’re not super interested in these ideas, no worries, you can stop coming.” Paying people (for completion) increases the likelihood that people will stay out of a sense of commitment/obligation, even if they have no plans to take EA ideas seriously. I think this is quite harmful. It makes fellowship discussions less interesting/engaging. It makes going to the fellowship meetings feel more like a chore than something that feels really special/exciting. And I think it makes the experience worse for the fellows who are really committed.
1.3-- I think this is mostly a naming thing. It’s completely normal for “weekly reading groups” to be unpaid. I think the term “fellowship” usually implies a much more involved experience (e.g., a 40hr/week 8-week research fellowship), which is why we associate the term “fellowship” with “paid.”
1.4-- Agreed. Again, though, I worry about the concern I expressed in 1.2. I want people to spend time on these ideas because they’re important, serious, inspiring, etc.
1.5-- Same thoughts as 1.2 and 1.4.
2.1-- Agreed. I think there’s probably two things going on here: a) people who come for the money and b) people who stay out of a feeling of commitment/obligation that is reinforced by the money. I’m more worried about B than A. If we were offering stipends of, say, $5000, then I would become more worried about A.
2.2-2.5-- Pretty much agree with these risks and your ideas for managing them. The reputational risks in 2.3 seem especially important. The tail risk here seems pretty bad (e.g., media coverage that frames paying fellows in an uncharitable light). I believe CEA has talked about how tech companies and management consulting companies spend a lot of money on recruiting/outreach at universities. And there’s no equivalent for high-impact work, which is a shame. So perhaps this can be framed as “we need to be competitive with these other organizations that are trying to attract top talent.” I’m not sure how well this would work, though, since tech companies and management consultancies generally don’t have super altruistic/feel-good/admirable reputations.
Final thought—you claim:
I believe that the arguments for [paying fellows] are significantly more compelling than the arguments against.
I think this is a pretty strong statement, and I currently don’t agree with it. Even if the benefits outweighed the costs on average, I think there would be substantial variability across groups. At some universities, this may cause more reputational risk; at others, the added value from prestige might be especially high.
Thank you for raising this discussion! Excited to say more once the Penn EA reflection is out.
Quick question: How many applications did you receive? To what extent do you think the number of high-quality applications was boosted by offering stipends?
Thanks for your response, Akash! I know I’m late to reply, so forgive me.
Especially thanks for bringing up 1.2 as a failure mode where people aren’t engaged but continue coming. This seems worrisome, and I think I didn’t consider it because it’s not something I’ve noticed in my facilitating. But it’s obviously very important.
I agree that there would be lots of variability across groups, but I’m not unsure what this implies. I am not totally against high risk, high reward strategies, and this probably depends on existential risk timelines as well as what the status quo (or counterfactual) looks like. If Uni groups are already getting ~80% of the people they want, high risk/reward strategies are not so good, but if it’s more like 20% this flips. I should probably figure out what I think it is.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, I have found them very helpful.
Penn EA organizer here! Thanks for raising this discussion, Aaron. Penn EA paid intro fellows $500 this semester, and we plan to write-up a reflection soon. For now, though, I have a few quick thoughts on the points you raised:
1.1-- This seems quite reasonable. Does this require paying everyone, or just having an optional financial aid policy? I suppose people might feel bad applying for financial aid, especially from a group focused on altruism.
1.2-- I actually see this as an argument against paying fellows. I think one common failure mode of fellowships is that you end up with groups where like 1 person is engaged and 3-5 people are clearly not engaged. After week 2 or 3, I would love it if we just said “hey, if you’re not super interested in these ideas, no worries, you can stop coming.” Paying people (for completion) increases the likelihood that people will stay out of a sense of commitment/obligation, even if they have no plans to take EA ideas seriously. I think this is quite harmful. It makes fellowship discussions less interesting/engaging. It makes going to the fellowship meetings feel more like a chore than something that feels really special/exciting. And I think it makes the experience worse for the fellows who are really committed.
1.3-- I think this is mostly a naming thing. It’s completely normal for “weekly reading groups” to be unpaid. I think the term “fellowship” usually implies a much more involved experience (e.g., a 40hr/week 8-week research fellowship), which is why we associate the term “fellowship” with “paid.”
1.4-- Agreed. Again, though, I worry about the concern I expressed in 1.2. I want people to spend time on these ideas because they’re important, serious, inspiring, etc.
1.5-- Same thoughts as 1.2 and 1.4.
2.1-- Agreed. I think there’s probably two things going on here: a) people who come for the money and b) people who stay out of a feeling of commitment/obligation that is reinforced by the money. I’m more worried about B than A. If we were offering stipends of, say, $5000, then I would become more worried about A.
2.2-2.5-- Pretty much agree with these risks and your ideas for managing them. The reputational risks in 2.3 seem especially important. The tail risk here seems pretty bad (e.g., media coverage that frames paying fellows in an uncharitable light). I believe CEA has talked about how tech companies and management consulting companies spend a lot of money on recruiting/outreach at universities. And there’s no equivalent for high-impact work, which is a shame. So perhaps this can be framed as “we need to be competitive with these other organizations that are trying to attract top talent.” I’m not sure how well this would work, though, since tech companies and management consultancies generally don’t have super altruistic/feel-good/admirable reputations.
Final thought—you claim:
I think this is a pretty strong statement, and I currently don’t agree with it. Even if the benefits outweighed the costs on average, I think there would be substantial variability across groups. At some universities, this may cause more reputational risk; at others, the added value from prestige might be especially high.
Thank you for raising this discussion! Excited to say more once the Penn EA reflection is out.
Quick question: How many applications did you receive? To what extent do you think the number of high-quality applications was boosted by offering stipends?
Thanks for your response, Akash! I know I’m late to reply, so forgive me.
Especially thanks for bringing up 1.2 as a failure mode where people aren’t engaged but continue coming. This seems worrisome, and I think I didn’t consider it because it’s not something I’ve noticed in my facilitating. But it’s obviously very important.
I agree that there would be lots of variability across groups, but I’m not unsure what this implies. I am not totally against high risk, high reward strategies, and this probably depends on existential risk timelines as well as what the status quo (or counterfactual) looks like. If Uni groups are already getting ~80% of the people they want, high risk/reward strategies are not so good, but if it’s more like 20% this flips. I should probably figure out what I think it is.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, I have found them very helpful.