Summary:

  1. If you apply and are rejected, then I (and presumably other hiring managers) will often either not remember you — or actually be enthusiastic about you (e.g if you made it to later hiring rounds) if anyone asks in the future.
  2. People who have been rejected from the CEA Online team have gotten concrete job opportunities that they would not have gotten if they had never applied
  3. If you're rejected, I can also give you advice and connect you to other opportunities.
  4. Rejection is hard, but fear of it shouldn't stop you from applying.

Note: I wrote this year ago and temporal references like “the most recent” should be interpreted relative to that. Importantly: I no longer am on the Online team, although I think this post is still roughly accurate for them.

BURNPIT: U.S. Politics, August 2022

I sometimes talk to people who are nervous about applying to EA organizations because they think a rejection could damage their chances at not just the organization they apply to but all EA organizations.

This fear is not completely ungrounded – EA is a small community, and hiring managers do occasionally talk to each other about candidates. As with most worries with how others think of you though, "You probably wouldn’t worry about what people think of you if you could know how seldom they do":[1] 100+ people apply to CEA per month, and my memory is pretty bad. The people grading applications will probably not remember people whose applications they reject, especially if that happens early on, and if it happens later, that likely means that they saw something promising. (There are also other costs to applying, like your time and energy.)

I wanted to point out though that being rejected as a candidate, particularly if you make it to the final round of a hiring process, can actually be substantially positive.

Here are some things that happened to rejected candidates in some of the hiring rounds I ran:

  1. Hired by CEA as a contractor for a position similar to what they applied to (the position we were hiring for ended up needing slightly more than 1 FTE of work, so we hired them to do some of the overfill)
  2. Received a grant to quit their job and work independently on something similar to what they applied to after I encouraged them to do so and recommended the grant
  3. Repeatedly consulted CEA on their area of expertise as a volunteer (though we offered to pay them, they just declined payment)
  4. Received a grant from LTFF to skill up after I endorsed them, based on what I learned during their hiring process

I also try to give useful feedback to candidates who are rejected.[2] Here is an email I recently received from a rejected applicant, which Carly (the applicant) kindly agreed to share publicly:

Hi Ben,

Hope you are well! I was in the Project Coordinator search at CEA a few months ago and wanted to drop you a quick note of gratitude.

 I want to thank you for your part in helping to transition my career into EA. I was very hopeful about getting the role at CEA and can easily imagine a scenario where a typical rejection letter - short, generic, or dismissive - may have dampened my enthusiasm and at worst lowered my spirits enough to not go to EAGx Boston the following day. Your rejection letter, however, was so insightful and encouraging that it had the opposite effect. You motivated me to keep learning and networking and to go to the conference which started the chain of events that led me to a position that I'm very excited to start at Alvea in a few weeks.

All of this is just to say thanks and no need for a reply! I know those letters take time and are not expected or necessary for unsuccessful candidates but they make an impact!

-Carly Tryens

People in the EA network tend to be both inexperienced and self-motivated, and the combination of those traits means that it's unusually likely for me to sincerely suggest that they spend a year working in an adjacent field or skilling up and then apply again. I won't pretend that this suggestion is always easy to hear – being rejected from a job is never fun – but you should not view applying here as your one and only chance to work at an EA organization.

I don't want to be uniformly positive; here are some scenarios in which I would be hesitant to apply:

  1. If I expected that the hiring manager would particularly remember me (e.g. I already knew them personally) and I expected to do poorly in the hiring process

… I actually think that's it? I'm probably not thinking of some scenarios,[3] I'd be interested to hear ideas from others in the comments, but I'm struggling to think of another scenario.

Thanks Lizka for edits to a draft of this post.

  1. ^

     Quote attributed to a variety of people; perhaps the earliest is Olin Miller

  2. ^

     The amount of feedback I provide is dependent on how far they get in the process: people rejected at the first stages just receive categorical information (e.g. "not enough relevant experience"), those who do a work trial receive 1-2 paragraphs of feedback on their work trial, and those who make it to the final stage receive ~1 page of thoughts.

    I don’t want to promise that you’ll always get detailed feedback if you apply for a job at CEA. Not all hiring rounds at CEA are like this; sometimes hiring managers don’t have the capacity to do this, there are a lot of applicants, or something else is going on. But we often try to do it if we can.

  3. ^

     I guess there are also scenarios like "I wouldn't accept the job even if offered" but those seem too obvious to be worth mentioning

55

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments3


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

As someone who went through the CEA application process, I wholeheartedly endorse this. I was also really impressed with CEA's approach the process, and their surprising willingness to give feedback & advice through it.

[It ended up being a mutually bad fit. I've spent my whole career as a C++ backend engineer at a FAANG and I like working in person, and that doesn't align super well with a small remote-first org that has a lot of frontend needs.]

Thank you for your dedication to the community. I think this post is really important, shows respect to the candidates and what you do has an overall positive impact on the community. I understand that this level of interaction is not possible for every application (e.g. 80k advice), but I am all the more happy to see it in other areas of EA.

I ran a contractor hiring round at CEA, and I tried to both share useful feedback and find work for some of the rejected candidates (at least one of whom wound up doing a bunch of other work for CEA and other orgs as a result). 

Given all the work I'd already put into sourcing and interviewing people interested in working for CEA, providing this additional value felt relatively "cheap", and I'd strongly recommend it for other people running hiring rounds in EA and similar spaces (that is, spaces where one person's success is also good for everyone else).

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 20m read
 · 
Once we expand to other star systems, we may begin a self-propagating expansion of human civilisation throughout the galaxy. However, there are existential risks potentially capable of destroying a galactic civilisation, like self-replicating machines, strange matter, and vacuum decay. Without an extremely widespread and effective governance system, the eventual creation of a galaxy-ending x-risk seems almost inevitable due to cumulative chances of initiation over time across numerous independent actors. So galactic x-risks may severely limit the total potential value that human civilisation can attain in the long-term future. The requirements for a governance system to prevent galactic x-risks are extremely demanding, and they need it needs to be in place before interstellar colonisation is initiated.  Introduction I recently came across a series of posts from nearly a decade ago, starting with a post by George Dvorsky in io9 called “12 Ways Humanity Could Destroy the Entire Solar System”. It’s a fun post discussing stellar engineering disasters, the potential dangers of warp drives and wormholes, and the delicacy of orbital dynamics.  Anders Sandberg responded to the post on his blog and assessed whether these solar system disasters represented a potential Great Filter to explain the Fermi Paradox, which they did not[1]. However, x-risks to solar system-wide civilisations were certainly possible. Charlie Stross then made a post where he suggested that some of these x-risks could destroy a galactic civilisation too, most notably griefers (von Neumann probes). The fact that it only takes one colony among many to create griefers means that the dispersion and huge population of galactic civilisations[2] may actually be a disadvantage in x-risk mitigation.  In addition to getting through this current period of high x-risk, we should aim to create a civilisation that is able to withstand x-risks for as long as possible so that as much of the value[3] of the univers
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
If you are planning on doing AI policy communications to DC policymakers, I recommend watching the full video of the Select Committee on the CCP hearing from this week.  In his introductory comments, Ranking Member Representative Krishnamoorthi played a clip of Neo fighting an army of Agent Smiths, described it as misaligned AGI fighting humanity, and then announced he was working on a bill called "The AGI Safety Act" which would require AI to be aligned to human values.  On the Republican side, Congressman Moran articulated the risks of AI automated R&D, and how dangerous it would be to let China achieve this capability. Additionally, 250 policymakers (half Republican, half Democrat) signed a letter saying they don't want the Federal government to ban state level AI regulation. The Overton window is rapidly shifting in DC, and I think people should re-evaluate what the most important messages are to communicate to policymakers. I would argue they already know "AI is a big deal." The next important question to answer is, "What should America do about it?"
 ·  · 13m read
 · 
  There is dispute among EAs--and the general public more broadly--about whether morality is objective.  So I thought I'd kick off a debate about this, and try to draw more people into reading and posting on the forum!  Here is my opening volley in the debate, and I encourage others to respond.   Unlike a lot of effective altruists and people in my segment of the internet, I am a moral realist.  I think morality is objective.  I thought I'd set out to defend this view.   Let’s first define moral realism. It’s the idea that there are some stance independent moral truths. Something is stance independent if it doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks or feels about it. So, for instance, that I have arms is stance independently true—it doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks about it. That ice cream is tasty is stance dependently true; it might be tasty to me but not to you, and a person who thinks it’s not tasty isn’t making an error. So, in short, moral realism is the idea that there are things that you should or shouldn’t do and that this fact doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks about them. So, for instance, suppose you take a baby and hit it with great force with a hammer. Moral realism says: 1. You’re doing something wrong. 2. That fact doesn’t depend on anyone’s beliefs about it. You approving of it, or the person appraising the situation approving of it, or society approving of it doesn’t determine its wrongness (of course, it might be that what makes its wrong is its effects on the baby, resulting in the baby not approving of it, but that’s different from someone’s higher-level beliefs about the act. It’s an objective fact that a particular person won a high-school debate round, even though that depended on what the judges thought). Moral realism says that some moral statements are true and this doesn’t depend on what people think about it. Now, there are only three possible ways any particular moral statement can fail to be stance independently true: 1. It’s