Couldn’t agree more, thank you for posting this! I definitely agree that orgs are underestimating time spent on applications, especially high-quality applications.
On sharing data with applicants: there was one EA job I applied to that shared some insightful data, and I wish all orgs would share something like this at each stage: “We received over 1,700 applications for a single role, which is an unprecedented number for our organisation. By progressing to the work test stage, you were in the shortlist of the top 20 applicants.”
Not exactly related, but I would also be grateful if all EA work tests 1.) specified whether time spent reading instructions is included in the allotted time to complete the test; 2.) specified whether it’s permitted to take breaks or must all be completed in one sitting; 3.) were two hours or less to complete.
Very much second the thoughtful commentary by Marcus. As a professional fundraiser, I would also argue that even if this money becomes available, there is no indication that it would be likely to be funneled into high-impact causes. Speaking quite frankly, I have generally found the EA space to be suboptimal at fundraising—largely because fundraising is fundamentally relationship-driven, while EA is focused on numbers and impact. I might argue that EA needs to ramp up it’s traditional fundraising acumen if it would like to acquire some of these dollars.
P.S. For clarity: I’m not arguing that EA should toss out numbers and impact—that’s the whole point of what we’re doing! I’m simply saying that we have a long way to go in implementing classic fundraising best practices, and that without that, it may be difficult to secure funding from non-EA sources.