Thank you for asking this question! I definitely agree we should be exploring EAs treatment of mid-size donors and whether we are ready for them (especially in the context of EA fund diversification). I’m not confident that we need more research tools or rankers for such donors—I think there are already many resources for those (ex: Giving What We Can provided a wide range of recommendations across cause areas for such donors, not to mention others like GiveWell, Giving Green, Founders Pledge, ACE, Longview Philanthropy, Ultra Philanthropy, Ark Philanthropy, Ellis Impact, and more).
I think perhaps the more important question for preparing for midlevel donors is does EA have the cultivation and stewardship practices (professionalized fundraising) in place to keep these donors giving and increase their giving. I think this is a massive opportunity within the EA ecosystem.
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.