Hide table of contents

TLDR

  • Open Philanthropy (OP) announced it is passing over the EA university group support portfolio to the Centre for Effective Altruism’s (CEA’s) University Groups Team. We are encouraged by OP’s endorsement and are excited to continue to support EA university groups around the world.
  • As part of this update, Open Philanthropy (OP) shared it will only accept applications from EA university groups for their University Organizer Fellowship until December 31, 2024. After that, the Fellowship will be unavailable for EA university group organizers.
  • Changes in funding can be confusing and/or disappointing. In this post (mostly aimed at university group organizers), we want to clarify what the EA university group support landscape will look like after these changes.
  • Most importantly, after December 31st:
    • OP will no longer pay part-time EA student group organizers for their time. CEA is exploring whether to offer financial support for organizers in the future (and we are looking for input!).
    • CEA has taken over funding full-time university group organizers (currently just two), and is exploring whether to expand this.
    • Previously both OP and CEA offered group expense funding for EA university groups. OP will stop doing this, so CEA expects to offer a larger number of Group Support Funding (GSF) grants, which cover group expenses such as snacks at events, funding for retreats, and banners for marketing.
  • Various other CEA support services also remain available in the EA university groups ecosystem: our Organizer Support Program (OSP), the EA Groups Resource Centre, and the EA Groups Newsletter.
  • It is important to note that “neither of these changes reflect any change in [OP’s] thinking on the value of student groups” — or ours. CEA remains excited about the impact of EA university groups, which introduce thousands of highly talented students around the world to EA ideas, and helps them act on them. And the University Groups Team is here to support organizers!
  • Want to contribute to making this transition go well, and help top university groups in particular? We will consider late applications to our Strategy Lead role until December 13th!

What is changing?

As announced here, Tuesday, December 31, 2024 is the last day you can apply for OP’s University Organizer Fellowship

The fellowship covered three kinds of expenses:

  1. Group expenses, such as snacks at events, funding for retreats, and banners for marketing
  2. Funding for part-time organizers (sometimes referred to as ‘stipends’)
  3. Funding for full-time organizers

Below, we will detail what support remains available for these categories.

Any time a potential granting opportunity ceases to be available, it can disrupt future plans. We acknowledge that this might come as a disappointment to some of you. CEA’s University Groups Team is here to help you through this shift. If you have thoughts or questions, or are worried about how these shifts will affect your ability to keep your group thriving, please reach out to us over email or the EA Groups Slack. We are also available to chat.

What will the support landscape look like now?

Here is what the support landscape for EA university group organizers will look like going forward:

Group expenses

Until December 31st, you can still apply to get your group’s expenses covered under the University Organizer Fellowship.

If you are seeking group expense funding after December 31st, we encourage you to apply to CEA’s Group Support Funding (GSF). GSF covers many of the group expenses previously funded by OP, such as snacks at events, funding for retreats, and banners for marketing. One difference is that OP’s group expense funding was flexible and not tied to specific expenses, whereas GSF provides detailed guidelines, specifying amounts for specific expenses.

Note that OP will continue to offer funding for group expenses of AI Safety groups after December 31st.

Funding for part-time organizers

Until December 31st, part-time organizers can still apply to OP’s University Organizer Fellowship to receive funding for their time spent on running their EA university group. 

After December 31st, OP will no longer be accepting applications from part-time organizers to receive funding for the time they spend on running their EA university group.

CEA thinks that financial support, especially if coupled with non-monetary support, could be a valuable part of the ecosystem. At the same time, we recognize the downsides OP articulated in their post. Due to this and current capacity constraints, we are not currently setting up the systems to provide part-time organizer financial support, but we are exploring whether to offer financial support for part-time organizers in the future. We expect to publish more writing on this topic in the future, ideally by summer.

We want to strongly consider input on this topic from organizers from around the world. As always, people can reach out to us at unigroups@centreforeffectivealtruism.org, or provide anonymous feedback here. We also encourage discussion in the comment section below! 

Funding for full-time organizers

This summer, CEA took over funding from OP for the two full-time EA university group organizers. As part of our efforts to expand support for ‘pilot universities’, we are investigating what should happen in this space going forward, alongside our investigation into funding for part-time organizers. 

There is currently no official application portal for new full-time organizers. We recommend people interested in running an EA university group full-time to get in touch with us through unigroups@centreforeffectivealtruism.org

Continuing to grow the EA university group ecosystem

CEA remains deeply committed to supporting the EA university groups ecosystem. EA university groups have historically been a major source of introducing people to the ideas of and community around effective altruism. We think university groups are especially promising places to introduce people to EA ideas, and then help them learn more about and act on them.

The landscape of university group organizing is evolving, and we are actively engaging with stakeholders to determine the best ways to support organizers and ensure the success of these groups. Our goal remains to provide resources and tools that enable university groups around the world to thrive and grow.

We welcome feedback from organizers about the kinds of support you feel are most valuable, whether through our mentorship programs, funding mechanisms, or other resources. You can always reach us at unigroups@centreforeffectivealtruism.org, or leave anonymous feedback here.

Thank you to Alistair Bugg, Catherine Low, Heidi Basarab, and others for their input on this draft.

Comments16


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thank you for the post and for clarifying the current situation. 

I have mixed feelings about the results of the upcoming changes, particularly about stopping funding for part-time group organizers, as I feel this may lead to excluding many students from engaging in organizing groups. This particularly applies to:

  • students with a difficult financial situation
  • students who must cover high costs of living (e.g. due to living in an expensive city or region)
  • students who must pay their university fees or pay back their student loan

I myself am a group organizer to whom none of the above applies, and still one of my main worries about setting up a university EA group was that I would have to start working at some point to cover my costs of living (combining studies, work and organizing a group does not seem possible). In fact, this scenario seemed more likely to happen than not. Thankfully, I received a grant from Open Philantropy to work on the group part-time and this was a game changer. This was the single most important thing that allowed me to set up the group and focus on it fully, which is critical, as I am the only organizer. 

I am afraid that not providing funding may stop many students from setting up new groups, lower the capacity of current group organizers and even lead to some groups ceasing to exist. Furthermore, leading a group may essencially become an exclusive activity, available only to financially privileged students. 

Having said that, I appreciate the transparency of both your, and Open Phil's post about the changes. Thank you for sharing that!

I would be interested to see what proportion of group organizer request funding primarily due to difficult financial situations. My guess would be that this number is fairly small, but I could be wrong.

The bar should not be at 'difficult financial situation', and this is also something there are often incentives against explicitly mentioning when applying for funding. Getting paid employment while studying (even fulltime degrees) is normal.

My 5 minute Google search to put some numbers on this:

Proportion of students who are employed while studying: UK: survey of 10,000 students showed that 56% of full-time UK undergraduates had paid employment (14.5 hours/week average) - June 2024 Guardian article https://www.theguardian.com/education/article/2024/jun/13/more-than-half-of-uk-students-working-long-hours-in-paid-jobs USA: 43% of full-time students work while enrolled in college - January 2023 Fortune article https://fortune.com/2023/01/11/college-students-with-jobs-20-percent-less-likely-to-graduate-than-privileged-peers-study-side-hustle/

Why are students taking on paid work? UK: "Three-quarters of those in work said they did so to meet their living costs, while 23% also said they worked to give financial support for friends or family." From the Guardian article linked above. Cannot find a recent US statistic quickly, but given the system (e.g. https://www.collegeave.com/articles/how-to-pay-for-college/) I expect working rather than taking out (as much in) loans is a big one.

On the other hand, spending time on committees is also very normal as an undergraduate and those are not paid. However in comparison the time people spend on this is much more limited (say ~2-5 hrs/week), there is rarely a single organiser, and I've seen a lot of people drop off committees - some as they are less keen, but some for time commitment reasons (which I expect will sometimes/often be doing paid work).

I don't disagree. I was simply airing my suspicion that most group organizers who applied for the OP fellowship did so because they thought something akin to "I will be organizing for 8-20 hours a week and I want to be incentivized for doing so" — which is perfectly a-ok and a valid reason — rather than "I am applying to the fellowship as I will not be able to sustain myself without the funding."

In cases where people need to make trade-offs between taking some random university job vs. organizing part time, assuming that they are genuinely interested in organizing and that the university has potential, I think it would be valuable for them to get funding. 

My guess is that the downsides of paid organizing would be diminished to the extent that the structure and compensation somewhat closely tracked typical university-student employment. I didn't see anything in the UK report about what typical rates might be, but at least back in my day most students were at fairly low hourly rates. Also, paying people for fewer than (say) 8-10 hours per week would not come across to me as roughly replacement income for foregone typical university-student employment because I don't think such employment is typically available in smaller amounts. [Confidence: low, I am somewhat older by EA standards.]

I believe an important piece of information here is that Open Phil did not provide funding for organizers spending less than 10 h/week organizing their groups (or at least that was the case when I was applying for funding), so I suppose most of the funded students were probably working on the topic a bit more than that (this is a guess, though)

It looks like they do, or at least did, allow funding for <10 hr/week:

"Group leaders may ask for funding for organizers working less than 10 hours per week using either form above, rather than having those organizers fill out a separate application."

https://www.openphilanthropy.org/open-philanthropy-university-organizer-fellowship/

Hi Weronika, thank you for sharing your story and reflections so openly! I basically think you are right in there probably being organizers for whom the stipends are the difference between organizing their EA group and not doing so, and I really want to make sure we take this point into account as my team dives into considerations around part-time stipends in the new year. As @satpathyakash notes, I think an imporant question here is the scale, and I hope to make some progress on this point!

I also wanted to flag explicitly that we are tracking the diversity concern you note. 

I expect that as part of our research in the new year, we'll set up various ways of asking stakeholders, including current, former, and potential organizers, for input. I would be keen to include you in this process, if you're happy to keep sharing your thoughts! And as always: thanks for organizing your group :)

Hi Joris and Lin, thank you for your responses. Just as mentioned, it is quite interesting, for how many student receiving funding is the factor that decides about them setting up / taking over leading a group or not doing so.

Joris, I will be more than happy to share my thoughts with you in the future. Please do not hesitate to reach out to me at weronikamzurek@gmail.com or via slack anytime :) thank you for your work on that and I wish you all best in the process!

How will this change affect university groups currently supported by Open Philanthropy that are neither under the banner of AI safety nor EA? The category on my mind is university forecasting clubs, but I'd also be keen to get a better sense of this for e.g. biosecurity clubs, rationality clubs, etc.

(also — thanks for taking the time to write this out & share it. these sorts of announcement posts don't just magically happen!)

Hey Saul, I'm not sure how but I missed this comment! Sorry about that!

I think that the best way to answer your question is by reading this & Open Phil's original post so that where it says "AI safety groups" you read "non-EA groups". That is my understanding from Open Phil's original post.

Does that help? 

Thanks for the clarification — I've sent a similar comment on the Open Phil post, to get confirmation from them that your reading is accurate :)

Thanks for providing such a quick update, Joris! 

we are not currently setting up the systems to provide part-time organizer financial support, but we are exploring whether to offer financial support for part-time organizers in the future

Would you recommend that uni group organisers in need of a part-time salary apply for funding from elsewhere in the meantime, such as EAIF?

Hey Gergo, just wanted to say I've seen this and hope to get back to you soon!

I haven't managed to fully sync with EAIF or other orgs yet, but in the meantime just wanted to encourage people in this position to apply to OP before the 31st!

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 11m read
 · 
Does a food carbon tax increase animal deaths and/or the total time of suffering of cows, pigs, chickens, and fish? Theoretically, this is possible, as a carbon tax could lead consumers to substitute, for example, beef with chicken. However, this is not per se the case, as animal products are not perfect substitutes.  I'm presenting the results of my master's thesis in Environmental Economics, which I re-worked and published on SSRN as a pre-print. My thesis develops a model of animal product substitution after a carbon tax, slaughter tax, and a meat tax. When I calibrate[1] this model for the U.S., there is a decrease in animal deaths and duration of suffering following a carbon tax. This suggests that a carbon tax can reduce animal suffering. Key points * Some animal products are carbon-intensive, like beef, but causes relatively few animal deaths or total time of suffering because the animals are large. Other animal products, like chicken, causes relatively many animal deaths or total time of suffering because the animals are small, but cause relatively low greenhouse gas emissions. * A carbon tax will make some animal products, like beef, much more expensive. As a result, people may buy more chicken. This would increase animal suffering, assuming that farm animals suffer. However, this is not per se the case. It is also possible that the direct negative effect of a carbon tax on chicken consumption is stronger than the indirect (positive) substitution effect from carbon-intensive products to chicken. * I developed a non-linear market model to predict the consumption of different animal products after a tax, based on own-price and cross-price elasticities. * When calibrated for the United States, this model predicts a decrease in the consumption of all animal products considered (beef, chicken, pork, and farmed fish). Therefore, the modelled carbon tax is actually good for animal welfare, assuming that animals live net-negative lives. * A slaughter tax (a
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I can’t recall the last time I read a book in one sitting, but that’s what happened with Moral Ambition by bestselling author Rutger Bregman. I read the German edition, though it’s also available in Dutch (see James Herbert's Quick Take). An English release is slated for May. The book opens with the statement: “The greatest waste of our times is the waste of talent.” From there, Bregman builds a compelling case for privileged individuals to leave their “bullshit jobs” and tackle the world’s most pressing challenges. He weaves together narratives spanning historical movements like abolitionism, suffrage, and civil rights through to contemporary initiatives such as Against Malaria Foundation, Charity Entrepreneurship, LEEP, and the Shrimp Welfare Project. If you’ve been engaged with EA ideas, much of this will sound familiar, but I initially didn’t expect to enjoy the book as much as I did. However, Bregman’s skill as a storyteller and his knack for balancing theory and narrative make Moral Ambition a fascinating read. He reframes EA concepts in a more accessible way, such as replacing “counterfactuals” with the sports acronym “VORP” (Value Over Replacement Player). His use of stories and examples, paired with over 500 footnotes for details, makes the book approachable without sacrificing depth. I had some initial reservations. The book draws heavily on examples from the EA community but rarely engages directly with the movement, mentioning EA mainly in the context of FTX. The final chapter also promotes Bregman’s own initiative, The School for Moral Ambition. However, the school’s values closely align with core EA principles. The ITN framework and pitches for major EA cause areas are in the book, albeit with varying levels of depth. Having finished the book, I can appreciate its approach. Moral Ambition feels like a more pragmatic, less theory-heavy version of EA. The School for Moral Ambition has attracted better-known figures in Germany, such as the political e
MarieF🔸
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Summary * After >2 years at Hi-Med, I have decided to step down from my role. * This allows me to complete my medical residency for long-term career resilience, whilst still allowing part-time flexibility for direct charity work. It also allows me to donate more again. * Hi-Med is now looking to appoint its next Executive Director; the application deadline is 26 January 2025. * I will join Hi-Med’s governing board once we have appointed the next Executive Director. Before the role When I graduated from medical school in 2017, I had already started to give 10% of my income to effective charities, but I was unsure as to how I could best use my medical degree to make this world a better place. After dipping my toe into nonprofit fundraising (with Doctors Without Borders) and working in a medical career-related start-up to upskill, a talk given by Dixon Chibanda at EAG London 2018 deeply inspired me. I formed a rough plan to later found an organisation that would teach Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-specific psychotherapeutic techniques to lay people to make evidence-based treatment of PTSD scalable. I started my medical residency in psychosomatic medicine in 2019, working for a specialised clinic for PTSD treatment until 2021, then rotated to child and adolescent psychiatry for a year and was half a year into the continuation of my specialisation training at a third hospital, when Akhil Bansal, whom I met at a recent EAG in London, reached out and encouraged me to apply for the ED position at Hi-Med - an organisation that I knew through my participation in their introductory fellowship (an academic paper about the outcomes of this first cohort can be found here). I seized the opportunity, applied, was offered the position, and started working full-time in November 2022.  During the role I feel truly privileged to have had the opportunity to lead High Impact Medicine for the past two years. My learning curve was steep - there were so many new things to
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
34
cescorza
· · 2m read