I think maybe you and I differ on the number / variety of roles I’d be excited for readers of this Forum to apply to. It might be true that roles at e.g. CEA or 80k get many applicants (I think our record was somewhere around 500 applicants, for a recent advisor round, but I could be wrong), but I bet that there are tons of roles that get very low or zero applications from among readers of this Forum that could nevertheless be very impactful.
As an intuition pump: there are currently 715 jobs on our job board. How many of those are meeting your bar for ‘EA-aligned’? I think there’s roughly 5-10k people who consider themselves EAs. So even if a very high % of them are currently doing job searches, there’s no way that all of these roles have hundreds of EA applicants.
if I ever find myself hiring, I might be tempted to say ‘if you’re not confident in your fit, save yourself the trouble; our inbox will be full by lunch.’
The reason I wouldn’t do this is that:
a) It’s very hard to be well-calibrated on whether you’re likely to be a good fit. I think some people (certain personality types; women; people from ethnic minorities) are much more likely to “count themselves out,” even if they might be a great fit.
b) For jobs I’ve hired for in the past, I’m actually more excited about candidates with excellent transferable skills (high personal effectiveness, organisation, agency, social skills, prioritisation ability, taste, judgement, etc.) versus role-specific skills. But role-specific skills are much more concrete and easier to write about in a job ad. I think language like this might deter some of my favourite candidates!
Hi Bella, thanks for engaging! I appreciate your time and input.
1. Besides big central orgs, I’ve applied for roles at small orgs, newly-incubated orgs, somewhat fringe ‘we identify as EA-adjacent but not full EA’-type orgs. Also across cause areas. What they all have in common is that they each received 100’s of applicants. I would say the majority were in the 300-400 range.
2. I’m not saying that they’re getting 100’s of EA applicants, but 100’s of applicants overall. I suspect that many of those have been brought in on the tide of ‘how to have an impactful career’ marketing that EA has been doing, even if they don’t define themselves as EA’s.
3. I’d like to know if any of the paid jobs advertised on 80,000 Hours receive very low or zero applications. That would be very interesting to this discussion.
4. I meant the part about ‘if I ever find myself hiring’ as hyperbole to show frustration, not a serious policy recommendation. However, it touches on a real albeit tangential point: that if someone doesn’t believe themselves to be a good enough fit, perhaps they’re best-placed to know that about themselves. It wouldn’t be my role as the hirer to second-guess that individual’s agency. People may over-or-under rate themselves for all sorts of reasons, some of them valid! Speaking for myself (I happen to be a woman from an ethnic minority), I wouldn’t want my immutable characteristics to play any part in whether or not I get hired… Unless it benefits me. Then I’m all for it. :)
if someone doesn’t believe themselves to be a good enough fit, perhaps they’re best-placed to know that about themselves
I disagree — I think some people are just naturally under-confident, in a way that doesn’t correlate particularly well with their actual skill. For example, see these seven stories written up by my lovely colleague Luisa :)
I’d like to know if any of the paid jobs advertised on 80,000 Hours receive very low or zero applications.
Yeah, I don’t have that data sadly since it’s with all the different orgs running those rounds. I’ve run 5 hiring rounds at 80,000 Hours, and the number of applicants was 110, 91, 137, 112, and 107 — so, all around 100 :)
Yes, some people experience IS which isn’t a reflection of their actual skill. Data no, but it would be interesting to ask. It would surprise me if any of your job postings get the very zero or low number that you mentioned before.
When you opened up those rounds, did you consider near-misses from prior rounds or your professional networks first before deciding that a full open round was necessary each time? How do orgs make that decision?
Two very quick thoughts:
I think maybe you and I differ on the number / variety of roles I’d be excited for readers of this Forum to apply to. It might be true that roles at e.g. CEA or 80k get many applicants (I think our record was somewhere around 500 applicants, for a recent advisor round, but I could be wrong), but I bet that there are tons of roles that get very low or zero applications from among readers of this Forum that could nevertheless be very impactful.
As an intuition pump: there are currently 715 jobs on our job board. How many of those are meeting your bar for ‘EA-aligned’? I think there’s roughly 5-10k people who consider themselves EAs. So even if a very high % of them are currently doing job searches, there’s no way that all of these roles have hundreds of EA applicants.
The reason I wouldn’t do this is that: a) It’s very hard to be well-calibrated on whether you’re likely to be a good fit. I think some people (certain personality types; women; people from ethnic minorities) are much more likely to “count themselves out,” even if they might be a great fit. b) For jobs I’ve hired for in the past, I’m actually more excited about candidates with excellent transferable skills (high personal effectiveness, organisation, agency, social skills, prioritisation ability, taste, judgement, etc.) versus role-specific skills. But role-specific skills are much more concrete and easier to write about in a job ad. I think language like this might deter some of my favourite candidates!
Hi Bella, thanks for engaging! I appreciate your time and input.
1. Besides big central orgs, I’ve applied for roles at small orgs, newly-incubated orgs, somewhat fringe ‘we identify as EA-adjacent but not full EA’-type orgs. Also across cause areas. What they all have in common is that they each received 100’s of applicants. I would say the majority were in the 300-400 range.
2. I’m not saying that they’re getting 100’s of EA applicants, but 100’s of applicants overall. I suspect that many of those have been brought in on the tide of ‘how to have an impactful career’ marketing that EA has been doing, even if they don’t define themselves as EA’s.
3. I’d like to know if any of the paid jobs advertised on 80,000 Hours receive very low or zero applications. That would be very interesting to this discussion.
4. I meant the part about ‘if I ever find myself hiring’ as hyperbole to show frustration, not a serious policy recommendation. However, it touches on a real albeit tangential point: that if someone doesn’t believe themselves to be a good enough fit, perhaps they’re best-placed to know that about themselves. It wouldn’t be my role as the hirer to second-guess that individual’s agency. People may over-or-under rate themselves for all sorts of reasons, some of them valid! Speaking for myself (I happen to be a woman from an ethnic minority), I wouldn’t want my immutable characteristics to play any part in whether or not I get hired… Unless it benefits me. Then I’m all for it. :)
I disagree — I think some people are just naturally under-confident, in a way that doesn’t correlate particularly well with their actual skill. For example, see these seven stories written up by my lovely colleague Luisa :)
Yeah, I don’t have that data sadly since it’s with all the different orgs running those rounds. I’ve run 5 hiring rounds at 80,000 Hours, and the number of applicants was 110, 91, 137, 112, and 107 — so, all around 100 :)
Yes, some people experience IS which isn’t a reflection of their actual skill. Data no, but it would be interesting to ask. It would surprise me if any of your job postings get the very zero or low number that you mentioned before.
When you opened up those rounds, did you consider near-misses from prior rounds or your professional networks first before deciding that a full open round was necessary each time? How do orgs make that decision?