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?
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?