Thanks for doing this, especially since my last comment on the 80K open thread went unanswered (no shade though! I think I wasn’t specific enough, which I’ll try to do here). In that comment, I expressed a lot of uncertainty around: How good do I have to be at academic research, in order to do a PhD for policy? Since then, through informational interviews, I’ve gotten the picture that merely satisficing at academic research should be enough, but I shouldn’t treat it as a trivial constraint—doing good science is still hard, and at the end of the day, technology policy still requires some amount of expertise. I’d still appreciate thoughts on this question though, if you have some!
In addition to that question, I’ve begun to develop a new question: What should I do if none of my top options work out (if I fail or decide that neither academia nor policy are for me?) Throughout university and my career (I do part-time curriculum writing for an education startup), I’ve consistently gotten the feedback that I have a knack for teaching: for explaining concepts intuitively for others, for scaffolding ideas so that they make sense to others, and anticipating common learning obstacles. The problem is that there doesn’t seem to be an EA-aligned career path in which these skills would be directly relevant. 80K recommends against teaching, and I mostly agree with their assessment. Are there any EA opportunities in which the skills I’ve listed above would be relevant?
I was in my first year of teaching, as part of the Teach For Australia program, when I learned about EA in late 2018. And I think I actually learned of EA specifically because I was worried about whether my job was as impactful as I’d expected, and I went to that 80k article for reassurance (since I half-remembered a different 80k article I’d been shared and skimmed the previous year that sounded more positive about teaching). I was initially inclined to disagree with the article, but its arguments did seem reasonable, so I read a bunch more and then got really sold on EA.
The problem is that there doesn’t seem to be an EA-aligned career path in which these skills would be directly relevant. [...] Are there any EA opportunities in which the skills I’ve listed above would be relevant?
I think there are. Michelle Hutchinson describes some relevant potential opportunities here. And on that article, I made the following comment, which also seems relevant here:
---
Regarding influencing future decision-makers
[Michelle writes:]
Something which would make that most likely to happen is having EA ideas discussed in courses in all top universities. That led me to wonder whether we’re currently neglecting supporting and encouraging lecturers to do that.
On the first claim: This post using neoliberalism as a case study seems relevant (I highlight that mainly for readers, not as new evidence, as I imagine that article probably already influenced [Michelle’s] thinking here).
On the second claim: When I was a high school teacher and first learned of EA, two of the main next career steps I initially considered were:
Try to write a sort of EA textbook
Try to become a university lecturer who doesn’t do much research, and basically just takes on lots of teaching duties
My thinking was that:
I’d seen various people argue that it’s a shame that so many world-class researchers have to spend much of their time teaching when that wasn’t their comparative advantage (and in some cases they were outright bad at it)
And I’d also heard various people argue that a major point of leverage over future leaders may be influencing what ideas students at top unis are exposed to
So it seemed like it might be worth considering trying to find a way to specialise in taking teaching load off top researchers’ plates while also influencing future generations of leaders
I didn’t actually look into whether jobs along those lines exist. I considered that maybe, even if they don’t exist, one could be entrepreneurial and convince a uni to create one, or adapt another role into that.
Though an obstacle would probably be the rigidity of many universities.
I ultimately decided on other paths, partly due to reading more of 80k’s articles. And I do think the decisions I made make more sense for me. But reading this post has reminded me of those ideas and updated me towards thinking it could be worth some people considering the second one in particular.
Supporting teaching of effective altruism at universities
I feel quite good about the ideas in this section [of Michelle’s post] - I’d definitely be excited for one or more things along those lines to be done one or more people who are good fits for that.
Some of those activities sound like they might be sort-of similar to some of the roles people involved in other EA education efforts (e.g., Students for High-Impact Charity, SPARC) and Effective Thesis have played. So maybe it’d be valuable to talk to such people, learn about their experiences and their perspectives on these ideas, etc.
Furthermore, I think that the EA community needs to do more to ensure that EAs can easily become acquainted with [important between-cause considerations (IBCs)], by producing a greater quantity of educational content that could appeal to a wider range of people. This could include short(ish) videos, online courses, or simplified write-ups. An EA movement where most EAs have at least a high-level understanding of all known IBCs should be a movement where people are more aligned to the highest value cause areas (whatever these might be), and ultimately a movement that does more good.
[...] In light of this these are my proposed next steps:
[...] Do a stock take of all the resources that are currently available to learn about the IBCs Identify where further content might be useful to inform a wider range of people of the IBCs, and determine what type of content this should be Potentially collaborate with others to produce this content and disseminate to the EA community (I am very aware of the danger of doing harm at this stage and would mitigate this risk or may not engage in this stage myself if necessary)
If you are significantly worried that your top options might not work out, or just significantly interested in exploring options that make more use of your teaching-ish skillset, it may well be worth reaching out the post’s author, Jack Malde.
---
Another person it could be worth talking to is alexrjl. Alex did the Teach First program (source) but now does a range of things related to forecasting and EA-aligned research, including making a series of videos to help people understand and get better at forecasting. (I don’t know Alex personally and haven’t watched those videos myself.)
---
Disclaimer: I expect more could be said on this topic, perhaps especially by people who know more about your full set of interests, skills, and plans. These comments are just a relatively quick response. I also haven’t tailored my comment to the fact you have skills and interest in AI and policy.
Hey PolicyPhDPoser! Unfortunately, I don’t think I’d have much in the way of valuable direct responses to the questions in your first paragraph and your comment on the 80k open thread. But it sounds like you’ve been talking to a range of people who’d know more about that, which is great!
One other thing I’d add is that you might find other good people to talk to in EA London’s Community Directory, which is “a list of people based near London who are interested in effective altruism and would be happy for you to reach out to them to ask questions or arrange a 1-1.” I think it includes several people who’ve focused on things like civil service careers, tech policy, and AI.
(I’ll address your other questions in a separate comment.)
Thanks for doing this, especially since my last comment on the 80K open thread went unanswered (no shade though! I think I wasn’t specific enough, which I’ll try to do here). In that comment, I expressed a lot of uncertainty around: How good do I have to be at academic research, in order to do a PhD for policy? Since then, through informational interviews, I’ve gotten the picture that merely satisficing at academic research should be enough, but I shouldn’t treat it as a trivial constraint—doing good science is still hard, and at the end of the day, technology policy still requires some amount of expertise. I’d still appreciate thoughts on this question though, if you have some!
In addition to that question, I’ve begun to develop a new question: What should I do if none of my top options work out (if I fail or decide that neither academia nor policy are for me?) Throughout university and my career (I do part-time curriculum writing for an education startup), I’ve consistently gotten the feedback that I have a knack for teaching: for explaining concepts intuitively for others, for scaffolding ideas so that they make sense to others, and anticipating common learning obstacles. The problem is that there doesn’t seem to be an EA-aligned career path in which these skills would be directly relevant. 80K recommends against teaching, and I mostly agree with their assessment. Are there any EA opportunities in which the skills I’ve listed above would be relevant?
I find your second paragraph relatable.
I was in my first year of teaching, as part of the Teach For Australia program, when I learned about EA in late 2018. And I think I actually learned of EA specifically because I was worried about whether my job was as impactful as I’d expected, and I went to that 80k article for reassurance (since I half-remembered a different 80k article I’d been shared and skimmed the previous year that sounded more positive about teaching). I was initially inclined to disagree with the article, but its arguments did seem reasonable, so I read a bunch more and then got really sold on EA.
I think there are. Michelle Hutchinson describes some relevant potential opportunities here. And on that article, I made the following comment, which also seems relevant here:
---
Regarding influencing future decision-makers
[Michelle writes:]
Both of those claims match my independent impression.
On the first claim: This post using neoliberalism as a case study seems relevant (I highlight that mainly for readers, not as new evidence, as I imagine that article probably already influenced [Michelle’s] thinking here).
On the second claim: When I was a high school teacher and first learned of EA, two of the main next career steps I initially considered were:
Try to write a sort of EA textbook
Try to become a university lecturer who doesn’t do much research, and basically just takes on lots of teaching duties
My thinking was that:
I’d seen various people argue that it’s a shame that so many world-class researchers have to spend much of their time teaching when that wasn’t their comparative advantage (and in some cases they were outright bad at it)
And I’d also heard various people argue that a major point of leverage over future leaders may be influencing what ideas students at top unis are exposed to
So it seemed like it might be worth considering trying to find a way to specialise in taking teaching load off top researchers’ plates while also influencing future generations of leaders
I didn’t actually look into whether jobs along those lines exist. I considered that maybe, even if they don’t exist, one could be entrepreneurial and convince a uni to create one, or adapt another role into that.
Though an obstacle would probably be the rigidity of many universities.
I ultimately decided on other paths, partly due to reading more of 80k’s articles. And I do think the decisions I made make more sense for me. But reading this post has reminded me of those ideas and updated me towards thinking it could be worth some people considering the second one in particular.
I feel quite good about the ideas in this section [of Michelle’s post] - I’d definitely be excited for one or more things along those lines to be done one or more people who are good fits for that.
Some of those activities sound like they might be sort-of similar to some of the roles people involved in other EA education efforts (e.g., Students for High-Impact Charity, SPARC) and Effective Thesis have played. So maybe it’d be valuable to talk to such people, learn about their experiences and their perspectives on these ideas, etc.
[End of quoted comment.]
Another relevant recent post is Important Between-Cause Considerations: things every EA should know about. For example, the author writes:
If you are significantly worried that your top options might not work out, or just significantly interested in exploring options that make more use of your teaching-ish skillset, it may well be worth reaching out the post’s author, Jack Malde.
---
Another person it could be worth talking to is alexrjl. Alex did the Teach First program (source) but now does a range of things related to forecasting and EA-aligned research, including making a series of videos to help people understand and get better at forecasting. (I don’t know Alex personally and haven’t watched those videos myself.)
---
Disclaimer: I expect more could be said on this topic, perhaps especially by people who know more about your full set of interests, skills, and plans. These comments are just a relatively quick response. I also haven’t tailored my comment to the fact you have skills and interest in AI and policy.
Hey PolicyPhDPoser! Unfortunately, I don’t think I’d have much in the way of valuable direct responses to the questions in your first paragraph and your comment on the 80k open thread. But it sounds like you’ve been talking to a range of people who’d know more about that, which is great!
One other thing I’d add is that you might find other good people to talk to in EA London’s Community Directory, which is “a list of people based near London who are interested in effective altruism and would be happy for you to reach out to them to ask questions or arrange a 1-1.” I think it includes several people who’ve focused on things like civil service careers, tech policy, and AI.
(I’ll address your other questions in a separate comment.)