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.
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.