Very fair critique—I’ve tried to update the language in the post to more accurately reflect what we’re looking for, which is:
You can have no EA background and still be a well-qualified applicant who we would be really excited to speak with
BUT we think at a minimum you should be excited about what you have heard/read about effective altruism and generally looking for a role where you can have a positive social impact
Why that ‘but’? We would like people to be excited about what they do, and if you are opposed to the core ideas of effective altruism, then working at the Centre for Effective Altruism is probably not going to be the most motivating day-to-day role you will be able to find.
If you are a skilled designer who is new to EA but generally excited about the ideas, this is a totally plausible role for you and CEA is an excellent place to get a lot of EA context quickly (I can vouch—that has been my personal trajectory).
A few more-specific responses:
I’ve updated the description of the People Ops interview—both shorter and less EA focused. This was my honest mistake and wasn’t a great representation of the call, which is about you as a candidate rather than about EA credentials. (I’ve also now double-checked the descriptions of the other stages and am happy with their accuracy.)
I’ve changed the description of the categorical feedback to “not aligned enough with EA”. I’m still not thrilled with the word “aligned”, but trying to get at the description above—if you aren’t at all interested in engaging with the ideas of EA, that can be an early disqualifier. Thoughts welcome on better alternatives to “aligned”.
The participation in effective altruism application question is not used as a qualifier / disqualifier—it is a quick way for us to get a sense of how much EA context you have going into the interviews so we can match our EA-related questions to your level of context.
Hope that helps. Please do post this to non-EA friends/groups, we’d be happy to speak with them. And thank you for asking a question that I’m sure others were thinking!
Very fair critique—I’ve tried to update the language in the post to more accurately reflect what we’re looking for, which is:
You can have no EA background and still be a well-qualified applicant who we would be really excited to speak with
BUT we think at a minimum you should be excited about what you have heard/read about effective altruism and generally looking for a role where you can have a positive social impact
Why that ‘but’? We would like people to be excited about what they do, and if you are opposed to the core ideas of effective altruism, then working at the Centre for Effective Altruism is probably not going to be the most motivating day-to-day role you will be able to find.
If you are a skilled designer who is new to EA but generally excited about the ideas, this is a totally plausible role for you and CEA is an excellent place to get a lot of EA context quickly (I can vouch—that has been my personal trajectory).
A few more-specific responses:
I’ve updated the description of the People Ops interview—both shorter and less EA focused. This was my honest mistake and wasn’t a great representation of the call, which is about you as a candidate rather than about EA credentials. (I’ve also now double-checked the descriptions of the other stages and am happy with their accuracy.)
I’ve changed the description of the categorical feedback to “not aligned enough with EA”. I’m still not thrilled with the word “aligned”, but trying to get at the description above—if you aren’t at all interested in engaging with the ideas of EA, that can be an early disqualifier. Thoughts welcome on better alternatives to “aligned”.
The participation in effective altruism application question is not used as a qualifier / disqualifier—it is a quick way for us to get a sense of how much EA context you have going into the interviews so we can match our EA-related questions to your level of context.
Hope that helps. Please do post this to non-EA friends/groups, we’d be happy to speak with them. And thank you for asking a question that I’m sure others were thinking!