A small comment: if feedback is scarce because of a lack of time, this increases the usefulness of going to conferences where you can meet grantmakers and speaking to them.
I also think that it would be worth exploring ways to give feedback with as little time cost as possible.
A closely related idea that seems slightly more promising to me: asking other EAs, other grantmakers and other relevant experts for feedback—at conferences or via other means—rather than the actual grantmakers who rejected your application. Obviously the feedback will usually be less relevant, but it could be a way to talk to less busy people who could still offer a valuable perspective and avoid the “I don’t want to be ambushed by people who are annoyed they didn’t get money, or prospective applicants who are trying to network their way into a more favourable decision” problem that Larks mentions.
I had one group ask me for feedback on their rejected grant proposal at a recent EAG and I was confused why they were asking me at the time, but I now think it’s not a bad idea if you can’t get the time/energy of the grantmakers in question.
(Apologies if this is what you were suggesting, PabloAMC, I just thought from the thread on this comment so far you were suggesting meeting the grantmakers who rejected the proposal.)
[I]f feedback is scarce because of a lack of time, this increases the usefulness of going to conferences where you can meet grantmakers and speaking to them.
That sounds worse to me. Conferences are rare and hence conference-time is more valuable than non-conference time. Also, I don’t want to be ambushed by people who are annoyed they didn’t get money, or prospective applicants who are trying to network their way into a more favourable decision.
Mmm, that’s not what I meant. There are good and bad ways of doing it. In 2019 someone reached out to me before the EA Global to check whether it would be ok to get feedback on one application I rejected (as part of some team). And I was happy to meet and give feedback. But I think there is no damage in asking.
Also, it’s not about networking your way in, it’s about learning for example about why people liked or not a proposal, or how to improve it.
So, I think there are good ways of doing this.
Conference time is valuable precisely because it allows people to do things like “get feedback from an EA experienced in the thing they’re trying to do”. If “insiders” think their time is too valuable for “outsiders”, that’s a bad sign.
Getting feedback from someone because they have expertise feels structurally different to me than getting feedback from someone because they have money.
As you noted, it’s not you who “has money” as a grantmaker. On the other hand, it is you who knows what parameters make projects valuable in the eyes of EA funders. Which is exactly the needed expertise.
I’m not implying how this should compare to any individual grantmaker’s other priorities at a conference. But it seems wrong to me to strike it down as not being valuable use of conference time.
Grantmakers aren’t just people with money—they are people with a bird’s eye view of the space of grant proposals. This may not be the same as topic expertise, but it’s still quite important for a person with a project trying to make it fit into the broader goals of the EA community.
My intuition is that grantmakers often have access to better experts, but you could always reach to the latter directly at conferences if you know who they are.
A solution that I’m more excited about is one-to-many channels of feedback where people can try to generalize from the feedback that others receive.
I think this post by Nuño is a good example in this genre, as are the EAIF and LTFF payout reports. Perhaps some grantmakers can also prioritize public comms even more than they already do (e.g. public posts on this Forum), but of course this is also very costly.
A small comment: if feedback is scarce because of a lack of time, this increases the usefulness of going to conferences where you can meet grantmakers and speaking to them.
I also think that it would be worth exploring ways to give feedback with as little time cost as possible.
A closely related idea that seems slightly more promising to me: asking other EAs, other grantmakers and other relevant experts for feedback—at conferences or via other means—rather than the actual grantmakers who rejected your application. Obviously the feedback will usually be less relevant, but it could be a way to talk to less busy people who could still offer a valuable perspective and avoid the “I don’t want to be ambushed by people who are annoyed they didn’t get money, or prospective applicants who are trying to network their way into a more favourable decision” problem that Larks mentions.
I had one group ask me for feedback on their rejected grant proposal at a recent EAG and I was confused why they were asking me at the time, but I now think it’s not a bad idea if you can’t get the time/energy of the grantmakers in question.
(Apologies if this is what you were suggesting, PabloAMC, I just thought from the thread on this comment so far you were suggesting meeting the grantmakers who rejected the proposal.)
No need to apologize! I think your idea might be even better than mine :)
That sounds worse to me. Conferences are rare and hence conference-time is more valuable than non-conference time. Also, I don’t want to be ambushed by people who are annoyed they didn’t get money, or prospective applicants who are trying to network their way into a more favourable decision.
Mmm, that’s not what I meant. There are good and bad ways of doing it. In 2019 someone reached out to me before the EA Global to check whether it would be ok to get feedback on one application I rejected (as part of some team). And I was happy to meet and give feedback. But I think there is no damage in asking.
Also, it’s not about networking your way in, it’s about learning for example about why people liked or not a proposal, or how to improve it. So, I think there are good ways of doing this.
Conference time is valuable precisely because it allows people to do things like “get feedback from an EA experienced in the thing they’re trying to do”. If “insiders” think their time is too valuable for “outsiders”, that’s a bad sign.
Getting feedback from someone because they have expertise feels structurally different to me than getting feedback from someone because they have money.
As you noted, it’s not you who “has money” as a grantmaker. On the other hand, it is you who knows what parameters make projects valuable in the eyes of EA funders. Which is exactly the needed expertise.
I’m not implying how this should compare to any individual grantmaker’s other priorities at a conference. But it seems wrong to me to strike it down as not being valuable use of conference time.
Grantmakers aren’t just people with money—they are people with a bird’s eye view of the space of grant proposals. This may not be the same as topic expertise, but it’s still quite important for a person with a project trying to make it fit into the broader goals of the EA community.
My intuition is that grantmakers often have access to better experts, but you could always reach to the latter directly at conferences if you know who they are.
A solution that I’m more excited about is one-to-many channels of feedback where people can try to generalize from the feedback that others receive.
I think this post by Nuño is a good example in this genre, as are the EAIF and LTFF payout reports. Perhaps some grantmakers can also prioritize public comms even more than they already do (e.g. public posts on this Forum), but of course this is also very costly.