I agree. A funder interested in career changes in one cause area will probably only reach a subset of potential talent if they only target people who are already interested in this cause area vs. generally capable individuals who could choose directions.
In the business context, you could imagine a recruiter having the option to buy a booth at a university specialising in the area the company is working in vs. buying one at a broad career fair of a top university. While the specialised university may bring more people that have trained in and are specialised in your area, you might still go for the top university as talent there might have overall greater potential, has the ability to more easily pivot or can contribute in more general areas like leadership, entrepreneurship, communications or similar.
One aspect here is also the timeframe you’re looking at. If we think of EA community building as talent development, and we’re working with people who might have many years until they peak in their careers, then focussing on a specific cause area might be limiting. A funder who is interested in job changes in one cause area now can still see the value of a pipeline of generally capable people skilling up in different areas of expertise before being a good fit for a new role. The Open Phil EA/LT Survey touches on this, and similarly, Holden’s post on career choices for longtermists also covers broader skills independent of cause area.
In the business context, you could imagine a recruiter having the option to buy a booth at a university specialising in the area the company is working in vs. buying one at a broad career fair of a top university. While the specialised university may bring more people that have trained in and are specialised in your area, you might still go for the top university as talent there might have overall greater potential, has the ability to more easily pivot or can contribute in more general areas like leadership, entrepreneurship, communications or similar.
I think this is a spot on analogy, and something we’ve discussed in our group a lot.
I agree. A funder interested in career changes in one cause area will probably only reach a subset of potential talent if they only target people who are already interested in this cause area vs. generally capable individuals who could choose directions.
In the business context, you could imagine a recruiter having the option to buy a booth at a university specialising in the area the company is working in vs. buying one at a broad career fair of a top university. While the specialised university may bring more people that have trained in and are specialised in your area, you might still go for the top university as talent there might have overall greater potential, has the ability to more easily pivot or can contribute in more general areas like leadership, entrepreneurship, communications or similar.
One aspect here is also the timeframe you’re looking at. If we think of EA community building as talent development, and we’re working with people who might have many years until they peak in their careers, then focussing on a specific cause area might be limiting. A funder who is interested in job changes in one cause area now can still see the value of a pipeline of generally capable people skilling up in different areas of expertise before being a good fit for a new role. The Open Phil EA/LT Survey touches on this, and similarly, Holden’s post on career choices for longtermists also covers broader skills independent of cause area.
I think this is a spot on analogy, and something we’ve discussed in our group a lot.