Outreach to high-schoolers (Atlas Fellowship) provided $50k scholarships, which could have instead been spent on reaching a broader, less elite, group of young people.
I understand that all else equal, you probably want smarter people working for you. When it comes to generating new ideas and changing the world, sometimes quantity cannot replace quality.
But what is the justification for being so elitist that we significantly reduce the number of people on the team? Why would we filter for the top 1% instead of the top 10%? Or, more accurately, the top 0.1% instead of the top 1%?
I’d appreciate any posts, academic papers or case studies that support the argument that EA should be extra elitist.
Full disclosure: I’m trying to steelman the case for elitism so that I can critique it (unless the evidence changes my mind!).
[Question] What’s the justification for EA being so elitist?
EA loves genius.
EA university outreach focuses on elite colleges.
EA orgs often pay above-market-rate salaries (1, 2).
Outreach to high-schoolers (Atlas Fellowship) provided $50k scholarships, which could have instead been spent on reaching a broader, less elite, group of young people.
I understand that all else equal, you probably want smarter people working for you. When it comes to generating new ideas and changing the world, sometimes quantity cannot replace quality.
But what is the justification for being so elitist that we significantly reduce the number of people on the team? Why would we filter for the top 1% instead of the top 10%? Or, more accurately, the top 0.1% instead of the top 1%?
I’d appreciate any posts, academic papers or case studies that support the argument that EA should be extra elitist.
Full disclosure: I’m trying to steelman the case for elitism so that I can critique it (unless the evidence changes my mind!).