Thanks for your comment. I agree with this assessment.
I wanted this post to describe our approach while communicating that the numbers are not what they seem at first. While I estimate that our overall efficacy is more than your estimated 5% (the follow-ups from GWWC are more robust than you describe), I agree that it is quite low—still, even if these efforts yield just a handful of effective givers in the long run, this will have been a worthwhile use of time.
I by no means believe that this is an optimal approach to tabling, but hope that this post will encourage other organizers to try something and continue to iterate on best strategies—because right now, I am under the impression that there is not very much of this work taking place on campuses.
We often will share more substantive information on EA (and follow up) with students who are especially enthusiastic. For example, it was through this tabling that we originally connected with a student who attended a recent EA retreat with us.
Thanks for your comment. I agree with this assessment.
I wanted this post to describe our approach while communicating that the numbers are not what they seem at first. While I estimate that our overall efficacy is more than your estimated 5% (the follow-ups from GWWC are more robust than you describe), I agree that it is quite low—still, even if these efforts yield just a handful of effective givers in the long run, this will have been a worthwhile use of time.
I by no means believe that this is an optimal approach to tabling, but hope that this post will encourage other organizers to try something and continue to iterate on best strategies—because right now, I am under the impression that there is not very much of this work taking place on campuses.
We often will share more substantive information on EA (and follow up) with students who are especially enthusiastic. For example, it was through this tabling that we originally connected with a student who attended a recent EA retreat with us.