Thanks for your thoughts and questions, Andrew! I’ve not addressed everything you touched on, but here are my quick takes:

• I wouldn't say an immense amount of priority is placed on work tests over interviews, at least at OP, though we do find them to be an extremely useful part of our decision-making process. It's true that a lot of time and effort goes into creating, completing, and assessing them, but a lot of time and effort also goes into interviews, e.g. in preparation, conducting multiple rounds, taking notes, in team discussions, etc. Maybe what you're getting at is that hiring processes are disproportionately front-loaded with WTs—which is fair! 
• I totally hear you on the lengthy work test bit—7 hours is a huge commitment, especially for people with full-time jobs or a family or simply a life to live (which as you say, includes everyone). I think there's probably a point of diminishing returns with work test length, but I imagine it's different for each depending on the signal sought: maybe one type of role doesn't need a WT that's longer than 2 hours, but some others are so nuanced that the point of diminishing returns doesn't hit until 7-8 hours. This isn’t hard for me to believe, but to your point I think it's probably right for orgs that administer WTs to always be asking, "Can we make this shorter while still capturing the signal we want to capture?" It's a good push!
• I definitely agree that a hiring process can be effective and successful without work tests. However, I think they make hiring even more successful, and the tradeoffs (e.g. the time it takes us to develop and assess them, the risk of putting off candidates who might be strong in the role) feel acceptable. Whether or not there's an academic bias in impact orgs' liking of WTs, I can say that hiring managers at OP, at least, find great value in the data points provided by longer WTs (otherwise, we’d retire them!).

Hey Antonia—thanks for the thoughtful questions!

First, your vet experience is likely way more expansive than you think. I suspect you're not fully accounting for some critical aspects of your work: you've been doing project management, people management, and administrative work this entire time, even if you haven't been calling it that. Every treatment plan is essentially a complex project with multiple stakeholders (e.g. owner, specialists, staff), budget constraints, timeline pressures, and success metrics. I’m sure you've been analyzing data, communicating technical information to non-experts, managing resources, and supervising people. These are important skills that research orgs and think tanks need. Your challenge is drawing that clear, credible line between what you've actually been doing and what these job descriptions are asking for. Don't make hiring managers do the translation work—spell it out for them.

At the same time, there genuinely aren't really shortcuts to getting jobs you're not demonstrably qualified for, especially at the senior level where organizations are understandably risk-averse. But you can (somewhat, and maybe) help bridge experience gaps by your alignment with the org's mission and values. If you can show a deep, specific understanding of why their work matters (not just "I care about animals" but "I've seen how X policy gap affects animal welfare outcomes in ways that your Y initiative directly addresses"), hiring managers may become more confident that you'll spin up quickly.

There aren't secret entry-level roles floating around, but many orgs do closed recruitment rounds where they only invite people already on their radar. The way onto that radar isn't mysterious—if you volunteer with target organizations, show up to EAGs, join relevant communities, and submit thoughtful applications even when you don't get the role, your name is more likely to percolate and stick. The goal is becoming someone they think of when the right opportunity emerges.

As for proper framing, a common missed opportunity I've noticed is writing resumes that list responsibilities instead of highlighting impact on the organization's mission, e.g. "Implemented protocols that reduced average treatment time by 15%" over "responsible for patient care". I’d also recommend resisting the everything-and-the-kitchen-sink approach—craft something lean where every single line directly supports your case for a specific role. For me, at least, an exaggerated, 10-page resume inflates away credibility rather than establishes it.

Your clinical background is genuinely valuable here, you just need to translate it in ways that make the value obvious to people who've never worked in veterinary medicine. Animal Advocacy Careers will prove to be a very useful resource here!

Hey Micah! Thanks for the helpful context. I’ll address your questions below in the order you’ve posed them:

• It’s hard to say if these roles are in demand relative to other roles you’ll commonly find on EA job boards, but operations roles of various stripes certainly draw on many of the skills you’ll have developed working in marketing and communications: clear writing, cross-functional coordination, systems and process design, and data analysis, to name but a few. Operations staff at smaller and growing orgs in the EA space tend to wear many hats, so being openminded and attentive to actual job descriptions even if the job titles don’t immediately grab your eye is helpful (e.g. an Operations Coordinator at a young org could very well be a key contributor to that org’s communications function). I’ll further add that, from my experience, strong writing skills seems more like a common denominator than a differentiator in the EA ecosystem, and so it’s relatively tough to find jobs for which that’s your comparative advantage. Superb project and stakeholder management skills are in shorter supply.
• From my perspective, the value of knowing a job applicant comes from an EA org is being able to more or less trust that that person cares about actually high-impact work. But you can get on fine without this heuristic benefit. Does your resume reflect your own tangible contributions to the orgs you’ve worked at, rather than generalized fluff? When filling out job applications, do you provide examples of how you improved processes that needed improving? Have you demonstrated initiative to solve problems that officially fell outside your remit, but mattered for your organization’s mission? Consider these questions (and others like them) when polishing your application materials. Prove you care about impact—and that you have the track record to deliver more of it—and you’ll more likely stand out. (By the way, I’ve deliberately skipped over some of the more obvious answers to your question that nonetheless remain true, e.g. clear and error-free writing, thoughtful application answers, etc.)
• I’m going to let my colleague, Dee Kathuria, speak to your third question—she drafted a response at the same time I did, and hers is better than mine 😀

Hi there, ElectricSheep! This is a good question—thanks for asking.

To my mind, your question boils down to the following: "How can folks who want to maximize their impact build towards an intentional, impact-focused career?"

I realize that phrasing strips away some of the details you shared about your own personal situation (e.g. that you're completing a PhD in Maths, that you're not interested in AI, etc.), but my advice is the same: leverage career guides (e.g. 80,000 Hours and Probably Good), be attentive to aligned job boards (again 80,000 Hours and Probably Good), build career capital (e.g. by volunteering with related orgs, getting involved with local or virtual EA groups), and talk to people (e.g. through participating in AMAs!).

I'll end there, since I know you posted this on the Career Advisors AMA and think this question is a good fit for that conversation.