I just wanted to reinforce the point Benjamin made above about getting involved in the EA community. For example, if you apply for a job at an EA organization, they may request references from the EA community in addition to the standard references from your last job. Do you already have strong references from credible people in the EA community? If not, it would be worthwhile to do more networking. You may also need to build up a track record of EA volunteer work, post on the EA forum, and so on to build up your own EA track record.
Here’s one way to think about this. Getting a job at an EA organization can be like getting a job in the film industry. You’re trying to break into a “glamorous” industry. That is, some people consider these jobs “dream jobs”—they have an extremely compelling “X factor” that has nothing to do with how much the job pays. (In EA, the ‘glamour’ factor is the ability to have a really high-impact career, which is the central life goal of many EAs.) So you may need to network, volunteer for a while, etc. in order to break in.
[This comment isn’t a reply to your main point, just about the ‘glamour factor’ that your film analogy is predicated on, sorry]
I think that the majority of people who believe working at an EA org is the highest impact thing they could do are probably wrong.
Consider: 1) if you work at an EA org you probably have skills that are very useful in a variety of other fields/industries. The ceiling on these impact opportunities is higher, as it uses more of your own creativity/initiative at a macro level (e.g. the level of deciding about where to work) 2) if 1) is not true, it’s probably because you specialise in meta/EA/movement related matters, that don’t transfer well outside. In this case you might be able to make more impact in EA orgs. But this is not the case for most people.
I think it’s different for people starting new EA orgs, or joining very early-stage ones—that does seem to have a high ceiling on potential impact and is worth a shot for anyone doing it.
I just wanted to reinforce the point Benjamin made above about getting involved in the EA community. For example, if you apply for a job at an EA organization, they may request references from the EA community in addition to the standard references from your last job. Do you already have strong references from credible people in the EA community? If not, it would be worthwhile to do more networking. You may also need to build up a track record of EA volunteer work, post on the EA forum, and so on to build up your own EA track record.
Here’s one way to think about this. Getting a job at an EA organization can be like getting a job in the film industry. You’re trying to break into a “glamorous” industry. That is, some people consider these jobs “dream jobs”—they have an extremely compelling “X factor” that has nothing to do with how much the job pays. (In EA, the ‘glamour’ factor is the ability to have a really high-impact career, which is the central life goal of many EAs.) So you may need to network, volunteer for a while, etc. in order to break in.
[This comment isn’t a reply to your main point, just about the ‘glamour factor’ that your film analogy is predicated on, sorry]
I think that the majority of people who believe working at an EA org is the highest impact thing they could do are probably wrong.
Consider:
1) if you work at an EA org you probably have skills that are very useful in a variety of other fields/industries. The ceiling on these impact opportunities is higher, as it uses more of your own creativity/initiative at a macro level (e.g. the level of deciding about where to work)
2) if 1) is not true, it’s probably because you specialise in meta/EA/movement related matters, that don’t transfer well outside. In this case you might be able to make more impact in EA orgs. But this is not the case for most people.
I think it’s different for people starting new EA orgs, or joining very early-stage ones—that does seem to have a high ceiling on potential impact and is worth a shot for anyone doing it.
This is very accurate but a little sad to me.