As someone who has been rejected multiple times and sometimes received a bit of feedback I can understand the frustration. At the same time, why is the feedback of that grantmaker in particular so important? I would advise to just ask for feedback from anyone in one’s EA network you think have some understanding of grantmaker perspectives. For example, if 80k hrs advisors, your local EA group leadership and someone you know working at an EA org all think you and your idea are good and you should apply for funding, then I would just do that. If you get rejected by all grantmakers than you probably were not too far below the funding bar. In that case perhaps wait until there is hopefully more funding or look at donors’ priorities and try to align with that. I also think Linch and other grantmakers do a good job of saying what types of projects currently fall just above and below their funding bar, giving a pretty good sense of donors’ priorities.
I should say that I have also gotten some of my grant applications approved, so perhaps I am a bit dismissive of views from those that never got a grant application accepted.
I would advise to just ask for feedback from anyone in one’s EA network you think have some understanding of grantmaker perspectives. For example, if 80k hrs advisors, your local EA group leadership and someone you know working at an EA org
Most people in EA don’t have anyone in their network with a good understanding of grant makers perspective.
I think that “your local EA group leadership” usually don’t know. The author of this post is a national group founder, and they don’t have a good understanding of what grant makers want.
A typical lunch conversation with people who are working in AI Safety (paid researchers, who got money from somewhere) is venting over that everyone is confused by OpenPhils funding policy.
Good point, perhaps I have been especially lucky then as a newcomer to direct EA work and grant applications. I guess that makes me feel even more gratitude for all the support I have received including people helping both discuss project ideas as well as help review grant applications.
And even if you happen to have access to people with relevant knowledge, all the arguments against the actual grantmakers offering feedback applies more strongly to them:
its time consuming, more so because they’re reading the grant app in addition to their job rather than as part of it
giving “it makes no sense” feedback is hard, more so when personal relationships are involved and the next question is going to be “how do I make it make sense?”
people might overoptimize for feedback, which is a bigger problem when the person offering the feedback has more limited knowledge of current grant selection priorities
I get that casually discussing at networking events might eliminate the bottom 10% of ideas (if everyone pushes back on your idea that ballet should be a cause area or that building friendly AI in the form of human brain emulation is easy, you probably shouldn’t pursue it), but I’m not sure how “networking” can possibly be the most efficient way of improving actual proposals. Unless—like in industrial funding—there’s a case for third party grant writer / project manager types that actually help people turn half decent ideas into well-defined fundable projects for a share of the fund?
As someone who has been rejected multiple times and sometimes received a bit of feedback I can understand the frustration. At the same time, why is the feedback of that grantmaker in particular so important? I would advise to just ask for feedback from anyone in one’s EA network you think have some understanding of grantmaker perspectives. For example, if 80k hrs advisors, your local EA group leadership and someone you know working at an EA org all think you and your idea are good and you should apply for funding, then I would just do that. If you get rejected by all grantmakers than you probably were not too far below the funding bar. In that case perhaps wait until there is hopefully more funding or look at donors’ priorities and try to align with that. I also think Linch and other grantmakers do a good job of saying what types of projects currently fall just above and below their funding bar, giving a pretty good sense of donors’ priorities.
I should say that I have also gotten some of my grant applications approved, so perhaps I am a bit dismissive of views from those that never got a grant application accepted.
Most people in EA don’t have anyone in their network with a good understanding of grant makers perspective.
I think that “your local EA group leadership” usually don’t know. The author of this post is a national group founder, and they don’t have a good understanding of what grant makers want.
A typical lunch conversation with people who are working in AI Safety (paid researchers, who got money from somewhere) is venting over that everyone is confused by OpenPhils funding policy.
Good point, perhaps I have been especially lucky then as a newcomer to direct EA work and grant applications. I guess that makes me feel even more gratitude for all the support I have received including people helping both discuss project ideas as well as help review grant applications.
And even if you happen to have access to people with relevant knowledge, all the arguments against the actual grantmakers offering feedback applies more strongly to them:
its time consuming, more so because they’re reading the grant app in addition to their job rather than as part of it
giving “it makes no sense” feedback is hard, more so when personal relationships are involved and the next question is going to be “how do I make it make sense?”
people might overoptimize for feedback, which is a bigger problem when the person offering the feedback has more limited knowledge of current grant selection priorities
I get that casually discussing at networking events might eliminate the bottom 10% of ideas (if everyone pushes back on your idea that ballet should be a cause area or that building friendly AI in the form of human brain emulation is easy, you probably shouldn’t pursue it), but I’m not sure how “networking” can possibly be the most efficient way of improving actual proposals. Unless—like in industrial funding—there’s a case for third party grant writer / project manager types that actually help people turn half decent ideas into well-defined fundable projects for a share of the fund?