Iām honestly sad that the first/āprimary motivation youād think of for writing a post like this would be to āstand out, act cutesy to hirers, and get a jobā. Iāve written this as a first post for a series on how the current broken view of Impactful EA Career can be revised. I find the first part of your comment rude and assuming to have bad intent.
Apart from this, I agree with you on the impact point. Iām very skeptical of your counterfactual impact with the 2nd or 3rd candidates for a role. I (generally) believe that optimising for different higher-absorbency, less EA-crowded paths is more impactful than landing a position on the 80K job board.
But disagree with the cause of this. I donāt think this is about ālooking professionalā at all. The problem isnāt about the single orgs that are doing the hiring. An org would open a role, do interviews, and hire someone who thinks they fit the role best. The cause is the disproportionality between āthe number of jobs in the classic EA orgsā and āthe number of smart, altruistic people who want to work in a classic EA orgā.
We need to change the belief that the best way to create impact with your career is by āworking at classic EA orgsā. So that people are more motivated to do earn to give, skill-build, found new orgs, try different projects, test new ideas etc. All these career options to have an impact should have higher status in the community.
That would be my motivation, yes. Itās a valid strategy.
Iām perceiving an increase in the amount of content coming out lately saying something like āare you burned out with the job search in a field that we presented as being totally realistic and strongly encouraged you to commit to even if you didnāt meet the criteria? Donāt worry! Get a job elsewhere and donate to our movement instead.ā That seems like a glossing over of the question of why so many resources are spent on accelerators/āprograms for āhelping you land a high impact careerā given the current state of over-saturation. EA is supposed to be about the effective use of resources; it doesnāt add up to me.
Iām honestly sad that the first/āprimary motivation youād think of for writing a post like this would be to āstand out, act cutesy to hirers, and get a jobā. Iāve written this as a first post for a series on how the current broken view of Impactful EA Career can be revised. I find the first part of your comment rude and assuming to have bad intent.
Apart from this, I agree with you on the impact point. Iām very skeptical of your counterfactual impact with the 2nd or 3rd candidates for a role. I (generally) believe that optimising for different higher-absorbency, less EA-crowded paths is more impactful than landing a position on the 80K job board.
But disagree with the cause of this. I donāt think this is about ālooking professionalā at all. The problem isnāt about the single orgs that are doing the hiring. An org would open a role, do interviews, and hire someone who thinks they fit the role best. The cause is the disproportionality between āthe number of jobs in the classic EA orgsā and āthe number of smart, altruistic people who want to work in a classic EA orgā.
We need to change the belief that the best way to create impact with your career is by āworking at classic EA orgsā. So that people are more motivated to do earn to give, skill-build, found new orgs, try different projects, test new ideas etc. All these career options to have an impact should have higher status in the community.
That would be my motivation, yes. Itās a valid strategy.
Iām perceiving an increase in the amount of content coming out lately saying something like āare you burned out with the job search in a field that we presented as being totally realistic and strongly encouraged you to commit to even if you didnāt meet the criteria? Donāt worry! Get a job elsewhere and donate to our movement instead.ā That seems like a glossing over of the question of why so many resources are spent on accelerators/āprograms for āhelping you land a high impact careerā given the current state of over-saturation. EA is supposed to be about the effective use of resources; it doesnāt add up to me.
Good luck with your search and series anyway.