132 karmaJoined


Images should be fixed now, thanks for pointing this out.

Hey, apologies that it has taken us so long to get back to you on this.

From your answer to Khorton, it sounds like your 2.4% figure excludes the Core job you didn’t hire for (which seems to have gotten more applicants than the average core job). I don’t understand that decision, and think it makes it harder to answer the question of whether EA jobs are hard to get.

Thanks for pointing this out! You've shed light on an important point.The 2.4% figure can be thought of as "the probability of being hired, conditional on clearing a hiring bar" and the 1.85% figure is the "probability of being hired at all"; on reflection I agree that the latter would be more useful in this case. I've updated the post to reflect this.

Can you provide CEA’s offer rate, for the PM role and for core jobs overall?

For the PM role there was only one offer made (to the one hire), so a rate of 1/52=1.9%.

For core jobs overall, on average there was just one offer made for each[1]. The average number of applications was 53.7, so the average offer rate for core roles is 1/53.7=1.9%.

  1. ^

    Of the 7 Core roles, one role made two offers, and one other role made zero offers, so this averages out at one offer per role.

Hey, thanks for your comment.

  • There are a few different ways to look at the probability of being hired. As you suggest, one would be to take the total number of hires and divide it by the total number of applicants, across all recruitment. We chose not do to this here because the EOIs are substantially different from the Core roles (in having a higher bar for progression, etc.), which would make an overall figure less useful. (The CEA website does emphasise the difference between main roles and EOIs, so it is something prospective applicants are made aware of when applying.)
  • When we "weight by the numbers of applicants in each stage", this just means that we're taking the average across applicants, and not across roles. (Worked example: two Roles A and B each hired one person. Role A has 100 people in stage 1, with probability of success 1/100=1%; Role B has 10 people in stage 2, with probability of success 1/10=10%. The probability of success when weighting is (1%*100 + 10%*10)/110 = 2/110 = 1.8%; but when averaging across roles it is (1%+10%)/2 = 5.5%)
  • Regarding the industry comparison, as you mention there are ways in which CEA might be more selective than industry and other ways in which CEA might be less selective. As Ben mentions in an earlier comment, we probably don't have solid enough evidence to call it in one direction or another.

No, this doesn't include applicants to the roles which we didn't end up hiring for.