stefan.torges

Launch­ing the EAF Fund

• storges 21 Nov 2018 9:13 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Denise_Melchin's comment on: Take­aways from EAF’s Hiring Round

  Thanks for your re­sponse, Denise! That’s a helpful per­spec­tive, and we’ll take it into ac­count next time.

• storges 20 Nov 2018 10:00 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: aarongertler's comment on: Take­aways from EAF’s Hiring Round

  Usu­ally, we gave ap­pli­cants the benefit of the doubt in such cases, es­pe­cially early on. Later in the pro­cess we dis­cussed strengths and weak­nesses, com­pared can­di­dates di­rectly, and asked our­selves if some­body could turn out to be strongest can­di­dates if we learned more about them. One low score usu­ally was not de­ci­sive in these cases.

• storges 20 Nov 2018 9:56 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: aarongertler's comment on: Take­aways from EAF’s Hiring Round

  I just ran the num­bers. Th­ese are the GMA cor­re­la­tions with an equally-weighted com­bi­na­tion of all other in­stru­ments of the first three stages (form, CV, work test(s), two in­ter­views). Note that this make the sam­ple size very small:

  • Re­search An­a­lyst: 0.19 (N=6)

  • Oper­a­tions An­a­lyst: 0.79 (N=4)

  First two stages only (CV, form, work test(s)):

  • Re­search An­a­lyst: 0.13 (N=9)

  • Oper­a­tions An­a­lyst: 0.70 (N=7)

  I think the strongest case is their cost-effec­tive­ness in terms of time in­vested on both sides.

• storges 20 Nov 2018 9:40 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: aarongertler's comment on: Take­aways from EAF’s Hiring Round

  Refer­ence checks can mimic a longer trial which al­low you to learn much more about some­body’s be­hav­ior and perfor­mance in a reg­u­lar work con­text. This de­pends on refer­ences be­ing hon­est and will­ing to share po­ten­tial weak­nesses of can­di­dates as well. We thought the EA com­mu­nity was very ex­em­plary in this re­gard.

  No refer­ence checks was de­ci­sive. I’d imag­ine this would only be the case for ma­jor red flags. Still, they in­formed our un­der­stand­ing of the rel­a­tive strengths and weak­nesses.

  We think they’re great be­cause they’re very cost-effec­tive, and can high­light po­ten­tial ar­eas of im­prove­ment and is­sues to fur­ther in­ves­ti­gate in a trial.

Take­aways from EAF’s Hiring Round