I agree. One more point to highlight in this context is that the type of retreats referenced in this post, namely Group Support-Funded (GSF) Retreats, have a median cost per participant that is very different from the cost per person as evaluated in Ollie’s post. A rough calculation of median costs based on data provided in that same post on GSF retreats presents:
For University EA group retreats: Median attendees = 15, Median funding = $2061 per retreat. This results in a median cost per attendee of $137.
For City & national EA group retreats: Median attendees = 29, Median funding = $6202 per retreat. This results in a median cost per attendee of $214.
It is important to mention that some of these retreats were partly self-funded, but it seems that the relevant financial support from the EA ecosystem is at least in this approximation much smaller than the ~$1,573 figure used in Ollie’s post. The same post on GSF retreats further mentions that “compared to EAGx costs from 2022-2023, the GSF budget per attendee is between 16% and 48% of the EAGx cost per person.”
It therefore seems likely, that the retreats analysed by Ollie are a different kind of retreat or that these retreats have already gotten much less expensive and therefore potentially more cost-effective (assuming that the quality of outcomes didn’t equally drop by a factor of ~7-11).
Thanks for pointing out that we actually have some more data on costs from GSF retreats.
On the other hand, I think the argument of my post is being left unaddressed: that we should prioritise summits over community retreats. As Ollie mentioned above, larger events provide the same benefit per participant. EAGx Conferences may be at a similar cost per participant compared to retreats, but I would be really surprised if the same was true for summits, which are only one day. I would love to get a better sense of how expensive summits are per person thoguh!
I agree. One more point to highlight in this context is that the type of retreats referenced in this post, namely Group Support-Funded (GSF) Retreats, have a median cost per participant that is very different from the cost per person as evaluated in Ollie’s post. A rough calculation of median costs based on data provided in that same post on GSF retreats presents:
For University EA group retreats: Median attendees = 15, Median funding = $2061 per retreat. This results in a median cost per attendee of $137.
For City & national EA group retreats: Median attendees = 29, Median funding = $6202 per retreat. This results in a median cost per attendee of $214.
It is important to mention that some of these retreats were partly self-funded, but it seems that the relevant financial support from the EA ecosystem is at least in this approximation much smaller than the ~$1,573 figure used in Ollie’s post. The same post on GSF retreats further mentions that “compared to EAGx costs from 2022-2023, the GSF budget per attendee is between 16% and 48% of the EAGx cost per person.”
It therefore seems likely, that the retreats analysed by Ollie are a different kind of retreat or that these retreats have already gotten much less expensive and therefore potentially more cost-effective (assuming that the quality of outcomes didn’t equally drop by a factor of ~7-11).
Thanks for pointing out that we actually have some more data on costs from GSF retreats.
On the other hand, I think the argument of my post is being left unaddressed: that we should prioritise summits over community retreats. As Ollie mentioned above, larger events provide the same benefit per participant. EAGx Conferences may be at a similar cost per participant compared to retreats, but I would be really surprised if the same was true for summits, which are only one day. I would love to get a better sense of how expensive summits are per person thoguh!