I did not review the model, but only 75% of hours being unpaid seems much too low based on my experience having gone through the job hiring process (including later stages) with 10-15 EA orgs.
Okay, so I used a different method to estimate the total manhours and my new estimate is something like 60%. I basically assumed that 50% of Round 2 −4 in the application process is paid, and 100% of the work trial.
I expect that established / longtermist orgs are disproportionately likely to pay for work tests, compared to new or animal / GH&D orgs.
I think Josh was claiming that 75% was “too low”, as in the total % of unpaid hours being more like 90% or something.
When I applied to a bunch of jobs, I was paid for ~30 of the ~80 hours I spent (not counting a long CEA work trial — if you include that, it’s more like 80 out of 130 hours). If you average Josh and I, maybe you get back to an average of 75%?
*****
This isn’t part of your calculation, but I wonder what fraction of unique applicants to EA jobs have any connection to the EA community beyond applying for one job?
In my experience trying to hire for one role with ~200 applicants, ~1/3 of them neither had any connection to EA in their resumes nor provided further information in their applications about what drew them to EA. This doesn’t mean there wasn’t some connection, but a lot of people just seemed to be looking for any job they could find. (The role was more generic than some and required no prior EA experience, so maybe drew a higher fraction of outside applicants.)
Someone having no other connection to the EA community doesn’t mean we should ignore the value of their time, and the people who apply to the most jobs are likely to have the strongest connections, so this factor may not be too important, but it could bear consideration for a more in-depth analysis.
I did not review the model, but only 75% of hours being unpaid seems much too low based on my experience having gone through the job hiring process (including later stages) with 10-15 EA orgs.
Okay, so I used a different method to estimate the total manhours and my new estimate is something like 60%. I basically assumed that 50% of Round 2 −4 in the application process is paid, and 100% of the work trial.
I expect that established / longtermist orgs are disproportionately likely to pay for work tests, compared to new or animal / GH&D orgs.
I think Josh was claiming that 75% was “too low”, as in the total % of unpaid hours being more like 90% or something.
When I applied to a bunch of jobs, I was paid for ~30 of the ~80 hours I spent (not counting a long CEA work trial — if you include that, it’s more like 80 out of 130 hours). If you average Josh and I, maybe you get back to an average of 75%?
*****
This isn’t part of your calculation, but I wonder what fraction of unique applicants to EA jobs have any connection to the EA community beyond applying for one job?
In my experience trying to hire for one role with ~200 applicants, ~1/3 of them neither had any connection to EA in their resumes nor provided further information in their applications about what drew them to EA. This doesn’t mean there wasn’t some connection, but a lot of people just seemed to be looking for any job they could find. (The role was more generic than some and required no prior EA experience, so maybe drew a higher fraction of outside applicants.)
Someone having no other connection to the EA community doesn’t mean we should ignore the value of their time, and the people who apply to the most jobs are likely to have the strongest connections, so this factor may not be too important, but it could bear consideration for a more in-depth analysis.