How hard is it to get a job in an EA-aligned organisation? CEA can contribute to this conversation by sharing some insights from our recruitment data.
In this post we look at the recruitment process for 12 vacancies, which were recruited for between January 2021 and April 2022.
Summary
The 12 roles were recruited for in two categories: CEA Core roles, which represent the main rounds, and Expressions of Interest (EOIs), which we were open to hiring but not actively focused on.
Total number of applications: CEA Core roles received an average of 54 applications each; EOIs received an average of 53 applications each.
Proportion of applicants invited to the first stage: On average 48% of applicants to CEA Core roles moved forward to the first stage of the evaluation process. 21% of EOIs were advanced to the first stage.
Proportion of candidates who were ultimately hired: For CEA Core roles, we ultimately hired 4.7% of candidates who reached the first stage, and 9.5% of candidates who reached the second stage. There were no successful hires for the EOIs.
Most roles have a multi-stage recruitment process. First, applications undergo an initial screening. Subsequently there may be trial tasks, interviews, and work trials, finally culminating in an offer of employment. The CEA website gives more information about the hiring process.
Since January 2021, CEA has maintained an internal system to manage recruitment. The analysis in this post concerns data extracted from the system in April 2022, which records information for 34 roles.
From this analysis we have excluded about two-thirds of the roles for which information is recorded:
5 roles within the Operations team, which spun out from CEA Core in 2021[1]
8 roles where teams separately tracked the hiring process
3 roles where recruitment was merged into other roles
1 role where, due to the nature of the role, applicants were each recruited in different ways
10 roles where applications are still open or recruitment is ongoing
The remaining 12 positions are listed in this footnote[2] and broadly fit into one of two categories:
CEA Core roles represent the main full recruitment rounds. CEA usually conducts lots of outreach for these roles, and proactively encourages people to apply.
Expressions of Interest (EOIs) represent roles which we are interested in eventually hiring for, but are not actively focused on at present. The website signposts that these roles have a higher bar for progression, and that CEA carries out much less outreach for them, but aims to make applying as easy as possible.
In the analysis below, it is worth noting the following:
Candidates exited the application process for a variety of reasons, and no distinction is made between those reasons; e.g. some were rejected while others chose to withdraw voluntarily (although the number of voluntary withdrawals is relatively small).
Some applicants were fast-tracked through the process and skipped some stages; in these cases the analysis still counts them as if they were virtually present for those stages.
Some applicants applied to multiple roles, and are counted in each role they applied for.
We only show whether applicants are hired to the role they originally applied for, but there are other outcomes where they may still be hired (e.g. some applicants may be hired to a different team, have a new role created for them, or be referred to another org).
Total number of applications
On average 54 applications were submitted to each position.
CEA Core roles received an average of 54 applications each; EOIs received an average of 53 applications each.
Figure 1
Proportion of applicants invited to the first stage
The proportion of applications reaching the first stage is the ratio between bars in the Figure 1 above and is shown on its own in Figure 2 below. On average 48% of applicants to CEA Core roles reached at least the first stage, representing an average of 26 people.
Expressions of interest had a lower proportion of applicants reaching the first stage, at 21%, representing an average of 11 people. This is expected, due to the nature of these vacancies and the higher bar needed to progress.
Figure 2
Proportion of candidates who were hired
We can make a naive estimate about how the “probability of success” changes for candidates as they move through stages. In these figures we divide the number of applicants in each stage by the number of candidates who were ultimately hired at the end of the process.
Most roles culminated with one successful hire. In one role, ultimately two candidates were hired (Events Generalist). In a further six roles there were no successful hires at all (including all five EOIs), and these are not shown in this section. Some roles had fewer than two stages in the process, so data for them is only shown up to the first stage.
Figure 3
Weighted by the number of applicants in each stage, for CEA Core roles, we ultimately hired:
2.4% of candidates who applied*
4.7% of candidates who were invited to the first stage
9.5% of candidates who were invited to the second stage
*We encourage caution when interpreting these results. This is especially so for numbers concering candidates who initially applied, as it includes both realistic applications and ones which were obviously below a reasonable bar for consideration (e.g. because they were incomplete; had gratuitous errors in spelling and grammar; or indicated a lack of familiarity with EA).
Predictably, the rate of success for each applicant is higher when there are fewer people applying.
Expected time spent on the recruitment process
In this section we estimate the expected length of time spent by each applicant on the recruitment process, for those who were invited to at least the first stage. We think this provides a useful reference class for the readers of this post, i.e. people with some familiarity with EA.
We include everything from the first stage onwards. This excludes time spent on submitting an application at the start, since we expect this varies significantly between applicants[3].
We use the following estimates about how long each applicant spends on each stage; the bounds are not precisely defined and intended to be illustrative.
Stage
Estimated time spent by each applicant (hours)
Lower bound
Central estimate
Upper bound
Trial task
0.5
1
3
Screening interview
0.25
0.5
1
Other assessments (skills, culture interviews etc.)
0.5
1
2
People ops interviews
1
2
3
Work trial
4
20
40
To get the expected time spent by each applicant, we then multiply these time ranges by the proportions of candidates in each stage. The findings are shown in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4
Weighted by the number of applicants, the average expected time spent by each applicant on the recruitment process is:
for CEA Core roles: 1.9 hours (estimated range: 0.8 to 4.6)
for EOIs: 1.3 hours (estimated range: 0.7 to 3.6)
It is worth noting that the median time skews towards the shorter end of the range. The application processes are designed to have quick activities at the start for larger numbers of applicants, and reserve the longer tasks for later in the process when there are fewer candidates remaining.
A comparison with non-EA organisations
Some roles at CEA are specialised, but others do have direct comparisons in non-EA organisations. One such role is the Product Manager for EffectiveAltruism.org, which CEA hired for in Q1 of 2021.
The graphic below shows the typical hiring process for a Product Manager in a non-EA tech organisation, based on data from Ashby, a recruiting platform.
The drop-off rates are fairly similar between CEA and the non-EA tech companies:
Ashby hires 4% of applicants, compared to 2% at CEA
At CEA 1 in 7 of those reaching a people ops interview get hired, compared to 1 in 5 at Ashby. This is perhaps a more meaningful reference point as CEA and Ashby might get different numbers of “obviously unqualified” applicants, but the people who get to a people ops interviews/on-site are pretty plausibly qualified.
Overall, CEA might be slightly more selective than Ashby’s customers, but it does not seem like the difference is large[5].
We use the term “CEA Core” to differentiate from the “CEA Operations” team. Although the Operations team spun out from CEA Core, it remains a part of the CEA legal entity.
We do try to make submitting an application as simple as possible. For most roles we only ask two free text questions, and encourage applicants to not spend a lengthy amount of time on them.
It is of course possible that the applicant pools differ (perhaps everyone who applied to CEA would have received an offer from Ashby, or vice versa). These figures just tell us the average applicant’s likelihood of success.
Is it still hard to get a job in EA? Insights from CEA’s recruitment data
How hard is it to get a job in an EA-aligned organisation? CEA can contribute to this conversation by sharing some insights from our recruitment data.
In this post we look at the recruitment process for 12 vacancies, which were recruited for between January 2021 and April 2022.
Summary
The 12 roles were recruited for in two categories: CEA Core roles, which represent the main rounds, and Expressions of Interest (EOIs), which we were open to hiring but not actively focused on.
Total number of applications: CEA Core roles received an average of 54 applications each; EOIs received an average of 53 applications each.
Proportion of applicants invited to the first stage: On average 48% of applicants to CEA Core roles moved forward to the first stage of the evaluation process. 21% of EOIs were advanced to the first stage.
Proportion of candidates who were ultimately hired: For CEA Core roles, we ultimately hired 4.7% of candidates who reached the first stage, and 9.5% of candidates who reached the second stage. There were no successful hires for the EOIs.
Expected time spent on the recruitment process: Of candidates who advanced beyond the initial screen, the time spent on recruitment activities was (excluding the initial application):
for CEA Core roles: 1.9 hours (estimated range: 0.8 to 4.6)
for EOIs: 1.3 hours (estimated range: 0.7 to 3.6)
Background and data used
The Centre for Effective Altruism (CEA) nearly doubled its headcount in 2021 and continues to make a substantial number of hires each quarter.
Most roles have a multi-stage recruitment process. First, applications undergo an initial screening. Subsequently there may be trial tasks, interviews, and work trials, finally culminating in an offer of employment. The CEA website gives more information about the hiring process.
Since January 2021, CEA has maintained an internal system to manage recruitment. The analysis in this post concerns data extracted from the system in April 2022, which records information for 34 roles.
From this analysis we have excluded about two-thirds of the roles for which information is recorded:
5 roles within the Operations team, which spun out from CEA Core in 2021[1]
8 roles where teams separately tracked the hiring process
3 roles where recruitment was merged into other roles
1 role where, due to the nature of the role, applicants were each recruited in different ways
10 roles where applications are still open or recruitment is ongoing
The remaining 12 positions are listed in this footnote[2] and broadly fit into one of two categories:
CEA Core roles represent the main full recruitment rounds. CEA usually conducts lots of outreach for these roles, and proactively encourages people to apply.
Expressions of Interest (EOIs) represent roles which we are interested in eventually hiring for, but are not actively focused on at present. The website signposts that these roles have a higher bar for progression, and that CEA carries out much less outreach for them, but aims to make applying as easy as possible.
In the analysis below, it is worth noting the following:
Candidates exited the application process for a variety of reasons, and no distinction is made between those reasons; e.g. some were rejected while others chose to withdraw voluntarily (although the number of voluntary withdrawals is relatively small).
Some applicants were fast-tracked through the process and skipped some stages; in these cases the analysis still counts them as if they were virtually present for those stages.
Some applicants applied to multiple roles, and are counted in each role they applied for.
We only show whether applicants are hired to the role they originally applied for, but there are other outcomes where they may still be hired (e.g. some applicants may be hired to a different team, have a new role created for them, or be referred to another org).
Total number of applications
On average 54 applications were submitted to each position.
CEA Core roles received an average of 54 applications each; EOIs received an average of 53 applications each.
Proportion of applicants invited to the first stage
The proportion of applications reaching the first stage is the ratio between bars in the Figure 1 above and is shown on its own in Figure 2 below. On average 48% of applicants to CEA Core roles reached at least the first stage, representing an average of 26 people.
Expressions of interest had a lower proportion of applicants reaching the first stage, at 21%, representing an average of 11 people. This is expected, due to the nature of these vacancies and the higher bar needed to progress.
Proportion of candidates who were hired
We can make a naive estimate about how the “probability of success” changes for candidates as they move through stages. In these figures we divide the number of applicants in each stage by the number of candidates who were ultimately hired at the end of the process.
Most roles culminated with one successful hire. In one role, ultimately two candidates were hired (Events Generalist). In a further six roles there were no successful hires at all (including all five EOIs), and these are not shown in this section. Some roles had fewer than two stages in the process, so data for them is only shown up to the first stage.
Weighted by the number of applicants in each stage, for CEA Core roles, we ultimately hired:
2.4% of candidates who applied*
4.7% of candidates who were invited to the first stage
9.5% of candidates who were invited to the second stage
*We encourage caution when interpreting these results. This is especially so for numbers concering candidates who initially applied, as it includes both realistic applications and ones which were obviously below a reasonable bar for consideration (e.g. because they were incomplete; had gratuitous errors in spelling and grammar; or indicated a lack of familiarity with EA).
Predictably, the rate of success for each applicant is higher when there are fewer people applying.
Expected time spent on the recruitment process
In this section we estimate the expected length of time spent by each applicant on the recruitment process, for those who were invited to at least the first stage. We think this provides a useful reference class for the readers of this post, i.e. people with some familiarity with EA.
We include everything from the first stage onwards. This excludes time spent on submitting an application at the start, since we expect this varies significantly between applicants[3].
We use the following estimates about how long each applicant spends on each stage; the bounds are not precisely defined and intended to be illustrative.
Estimated time spent
by each applicant (hours)
Lower bound
Central estimate
Upper bound
0.5
1
3
0.25
0.5
1
0.5
1
2
1
2
3
4
20
40
To get the expected time spent by each applicant, we then multiply these time ranges by the proportions of candidates in each stage. The findings are shown in Figure 4 below.
Weighted by the number of applicants, the average expected time spent by each applicant on the recruitment process is:
for CEA Core roles: 1.9 hours (estimated range: 0.8 to 4.6)
for EOIs: 1.3 hours (estimated range: 0.7 to 3.6)
It is worth noting that the median time skews towards the shorter end of the range. The application processes are designed to have quick activities at the start for larger numbers of applicants, and reserve the longer tasks for later in the process when there are fewer candidates remaining.
A comparison with non-EA organisations
Some roles at CEA are specialised, but others do have direct comparisons in non-EA organisations. One such role is the Product Manager for EffectiveAltruism.org, which CEA hired for in Q1 of 2021.
The graphic below shows the typical hiring process for a Product Manager in a non-EA tech organisation, based on data from Ashby, a recruiting platform.
By comparison, these are the figures from the hiring process for the CEA Product Manager.
52
28
20
7
2
1
We can compare the two processes in this table.
CEA recruitment process
non-EA tech recruitment process
(via Ashby)
Cumulative drop-off
Cumulative drop-off[4]
to Screening interview
46%
to HM
52%
to People ops interview
87%
to Onsite
79%
to Hired
98%
to Hired
96%
The drop-off rates are fairly similar between CEA and the non-EA tech companies:
Ashby hires 4% of applicants, compared to 2% at CEA
At CEA 1 in 7 of those reaching a people ops interview get hired, compared to 1 in 5 at Ashby. This is perhaps a more meaningful reference point as CEA and Ashby might get different numbers of “obviously unqualified” applicants, but the people who get to a people ops interviews/on-site are pretty plausibly qualified.
Overall, CEA might be slightly more selective than Ashby’s customers, but it does not seem like the difference is large[5].
We use the term “CEA Core” to differentiate from the “CEA Operations” team. Although the Operations team spun out from CEA Core, it remains a part of the CEA legal entity.
The positions covered in this post are:
CEA Core roles
CBG Programme Manager
Community Events Manager
EA Strategy Coordinator
Events Generalist
Product Manager (EffectiveAltruism.org)
Executive Assistant and Groups Support
EA Virtual Programs Operations Specialist
Expressions of Interest
Community Liaison
Early Field-Building Specialist
Epistemics Project Manager
External Communications Specialist
Groups Associate (Scalable University Support)
We do try to make submitting an application as simple as possible. For most roles we only ask two free text questions, and encourage applicants to not spend a lengthy amount of time on them.
In Ashby’s graph the percentages and numerical values differ; here we use the percentages.
It is of course possible that the applicant pools differ (perhaps everyone who applied to CEA would have received an offer from Ashby, or vice versa). These figures just tell us the average applicant’s likelihood of success.