Hi Vasco, thanks! That’s a very well thought-out and technical way of thinking about things. It does seem to miss an important caveat on what I think is the reality for many people: that we need a job to pay for things. That need pushes one towards applying rather than not, regardless of the relative likelihoods. Also, it’s impossible to know those probabilities.
More to the point of my post—do you think open hiring rounds are cost effective in situations where there are suitable candidates already in one’s own circles/the circles that one trusts?
People who currently do not have a job can still use the framework I described with a lower value of their time, which results in a lower cost of applying, and therefore makes applying more often worth it.
I think it is possible to get a sense of the probabilities. If one expects a hiring round to have 100 applicants, and has no more information, a good best guess is that there is a 1 % chance of getting an offer. If one has applied 10 times to similar jobs, but only progressed to the last stage once, and there were 5 people in the last stage, a good best guess is that there is a 10 % chance (= 1⁄10) of progressing until the last stage, and 20 % (= 1⁄5) chance of getting an offer conditional on completing the last stage, such that the probability of getting an offer conditional on completing the 1st stage is 2 % (= 0.1*0.2).
I think closed hiring rounds make sense in some cases, but that open hiring rounds are the best option for most cases. I do not have formed views about which organisations should be running closed hiring rounds more often. I personally like open hiring rounds because they give me the chance to decide whether applying is worth it or not based on my sense of the expected benefit and cost.
Have you ever read back on your own post later and thought ‘oh no, I hope that didn’t come across as snarky’? I’m having that moment right now. The ‘more to the point’ wasn’t meant with that tone, just in case! I meant it as a neutral transition.
What factors make the difference between those two options—some yes, most not? And how are you weighting each? Maybe there’s a way of analysing the cost effectiveness of closed vs open rounds.
Thinking more about it, I would say open hiring rounds are the best option for over 90 % of roles. Closed rounds make the most sense when the hiring managers can reach to many candidates who have already succeeded in a very similar role. For example, people who did well in Ambitious Impact’s (AIM) research program (ARP) would be a good fit for reseach roles at AIM, and a rigorous selection process for these roles would be very similar to ARP’s selection process.
Using your example, why not research roles at other EA-aligned orgs? Is it such a specific skillset that say, RP or WAI or another research-focused org would say ‘it’s nice that you did the ARP and we recognise that you’re currently looking… but we do things so differently here that we need to pay 20k on a hiring round all the same’..?
I think people who completed ARP (like me) will do better in Rethink Priorities’s (RP’s), and maybe Wild Animal Initiative’s (WAI’s) selection processes than random applicants. However, I believe RP’s and WAI’s research is sufficiently different[1] for the very best candidates to differ. Candidates who completed ARP could skip the initial stages, but this would not decrease the overall assessment cost much considering they would be a small fraction of the initial applicants, and the usefulness of having everyone complete the initial stages for greater comparability of the performance of candidates.
In particular, significantly deeper. AIM’s research team only has 3 people, Filip, Morgan, and Vicky. WAI’s research is also academic, unlike AIM’s, and the majority of RP’s research.
Once an org has already committed to running an open round no matter the level of talent readily available, I agree, allowing some applicants to skip some part of the process doesn’t change the cost much.
Hi Vasco, thanks! That’s a very well thought-out and technical way of thinking about things. It does seem to miss an important caveat on what I think is the reality for many people: that we need a job to pay for things. That need pushes one towards applying rather than not, regardless of the relative likelihoods. Also, it’s impossible to know those probabilities.
More to the point of my post—do you think open hiring rounds are cost effective in situations where there are suitable candidates already in one’s own circles/the circles that one trusts?
You are welcome!
People who currently do not have a job can still use the framework I described with a lower value of their time, which results in a lower cost of applying, and therefore makes applying more often worth it.
I think it is possible to get a sense of the probabilities. If one expects a hiring round to have 100 applicants, and has no more information, a good best guess is that there is a 1 % chance of getting an offer. If one has applied 10 times to similar jobs, but only progressed to the last stage once, and there were 5 people in the last stage, a good best guess is that there is a 10 % chance (= 1⁄10) of progressing until the last stage, and 20 % (= 1⁄5) chance of getting an offer conditional on completing the last stage, such that the probability of getting an offer conditional on completing the 1st stage is 2 % (= 0.1*0.2).
I think closed hiring rounds make sense in some cases, but that open hiring rounds are the best option for most cases. I do not have formed views about which organisations should be running closed hiring rounds more often. I personally like open hiring rounds because they give me the chance to decide whether applying is worth it or not based on my sense of the expected benefit and cost.
Have you ever read back on your own post later and thought ‘oh no, I hope that didn’t come across as snarky’? I’m having that moment right now. The ‘more to the point’ wasn’t meant with that tone, just in case! I meant it as a neutral transition.
What factors make the difference between those two options—some yes, most not? And how are you weighting each? Maybe there’s a way of analysing the cost effectiveness of closed vs open rounds.
No worries! I read it as a neutral transition.
Thinking more about it, I would say open hiring rounds are the best option for over 90 % of roles. Closed rounds make the most sense when the hiring managers can reach to many candidates who have already succeeded in a very similar role. For example, people who did well in Ambitious Impact’s (AIM) research program (ARP) would be a good fit for reseach roles at AIM, and a rigorous selection process for these roles would be very similar to ARP’s selection process.
Phew, wholesome, thank you.
Using your example, why not research roles at other EA-aligned orgs? Is it such a specific skillset that say, RP or WAI or another research-focused org would say ‘it’s nice that you did the ARP and we recognise that you’re currently looking… but we do things so differently here that we need to pay 20k on a hiring round all the same’..?
I think people who completed ARP (like me) will do better in Rethink Priorities’s (RP’s), and maybe Wild Animal Initiative’s (WAI’s) selection processes than random applicants. However, I believe RP’s and WAI’s research is sufficiently different[1] for the very best candidates to differ. Candidates who completed ARP could skip the initial stages, but this would not decrease the overall assessment cost much considering they would be a small fraction of the initial applicants, and the usefulness of having everyone complete the initial stages for greater comparability of the performance of candidates.
In particular, significantly deeper. AIM’s research team only has 3 people, Filip, Morgan, and Vicky. WAI’s research is also academic, unlike AIM’s, and the majority of RP’s research.
Once an org has already committed to running an open round no matter the level of talent readily available, I agree, allowing some applicants to skip some part of the process doesn’t change the cost much.