Hide table of contents

If we were going to summarise all our advice on how to get career capital in three words, we’d say: build useful skills.

In other words, gain abilities that are valued in the job market — which makes your work more useful and makes it easier to bargain for the ingredients of a fulfilling job — as well as those that are specifically needed in tackling the world’s most pressing problems.

So today, we’re launching our series on the most useful skills for making a difference — which you can find here. It covers why we recommend each skill, how to get started learning them, and how to work out which is the best fit for you.

Each article looks at one of eight skill sets we think are most useful for solving the problems we think are most pressing:

Why are we releasing this now?

We think that many of our readers have come away from our site underappreciating the importance of career capital. Instead, they focus their career choices on having an impact right away.

This is a difficult tradeoff in general. Roughly, our position is that:

  • There’s often less tradeoff between these things than people think, as good options for career capital often involve directly working on a problem you think is important.
  • That said, building career capital substantially increases the impact you’re able to have. This is in part because the impact of different jobs is heavy-tailed, and career capital is one of the primary ways to end up in the tails.
  • As a result, neglecting career capital can lower your long-term impact in return for only a small increase in short-term impact.
  • Young people especially should be prioritising career capital in most cases.

We think that building career capital is important even for people focusing on particularly urgent problems — for example, we think that whether you should do an ML PhD doesn’t depend (much) on your AI timelines.

Why the focus on skills?

We break down career capital into five components:

  • Skills and knowledge
  • Connections
  • Credentials
  • Character
  • Runway (i.e. savings) 

We’ve found that “build useful skills” is a particularly good rule of thumb for building career capital.

It’s true that in addition to valuable skills, you also need to learn how to sell those skills to others and make connections. This can involve deliberately gaining credentials, such as by getting degrees or creating public demo projects; or it can involve what’s normally thought of as “networking,” such as going to conferences or building up a Twitter following. But all of these activities become much easier once you have something useful to offer.

The decision to focus on skills was also partly inspired by discussions with Holden Karnofsky and his post on building aptitudes, which we broadly agree with.

If you have more questions, take a look at our skills FAQ.

How can you help?

Please take a look at our new series and, if possible, share it with a friend!

We’d love feedback on these pages. If you have any, please do let us know in the comments, or by contacting us at info@80000hours.org.

Thank you so much!

Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Not sure where it's best to leave this comment, but I might want to caution a bit against leaning too heavily on "what do you like best in high school" as a guide to what to study/work on. I read your excellent engineering profile on your website and recognized myself having used my passion and abilities in high school physics to guide me to mechanical engineering. However, I really enjoy both software engineering as well as data analysis, and have some evidence I do well in these, if not better than in mechanical engineering.

The problem was that I was never exposed to software engineering or data analysis/science in high school so I did not know my passion or skill level in these disciplines. I do not know how to solve this problem of not getting exposed to all fields in high school, or even university. I love the US liberal arts education where you are forced to try other disciplines and worry that students in Europe/non-liberal-arts-institutions might only at a very late stage in their life, or not at all, realize there was something they love even more and do better in, but that they were never exposed to. I did see that you mentioned in your profile that certain universities have "discipline agnostic" first years in engineering - but I think perhaps there is a case to be made that those that do not naturally get exposed to all fields, have a hard think about whether they might actually be a better fit for something they have not yet tried.

Totally agree! Indeed, there's a classic 80k article about this.

When working out your next steps, we tend to recommend working forwards from what you know, and working backwards from where you might want to end up (see our article on finding your next career steps). We also think people should explore more with their careers (see our article on career exploration).

If there are areas where we're giving the opposite message, I'd love to know – shoot me an email or DM?

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 20m read
 · 
Advanced AI could unlock an era of enlightened and competent government action. But without smart, active investment, we’ll squander that opportunity and barrel blindly into danger. Executive summary See also a summary on Twitter / X. The US federal government is falling behind the private sector on AI adoption. As AI improves, a growing gap would leave the government unable to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges and threaten the legitimacy of its democratic institutions. A dual imperative → Government adoption of AI can’t wait. Making steady progress is critical to: * Boost the government’s capacity to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges * Help democratic oversight keep up with the technological power of other groups * Defuse the risk of rushed AI adoption in a crisis → But hasty AI adoption could backfire. Without care, integration of AI could: * Be exploited, subverting independent government action * Lead to unsafe deployment of AI systems * Accelerate arms races or compress safety research timelines Summary of the recommendations 1. Work with the US federal government to help it effectively adopt AI Simplistic “pro-security” or “pro-speed” attitudes miss the point. Both are important — and many interventions would help with both. We should: * Invest in win-win measures that both facilitate adoption and reduce the risks involved, e.g.: * Build technical expertise within government (invest in AI and technical talent, ensure NIST is well resourced) * Streamline procurement processes for AI products and related tech (like cloud services) * Modernize the government’s digital infrastructure and data management practices * Prioritize high-leverage interventions that have strong adoption-boosting benefits with minor security costs or vice versa, e.g.: * On the security side: investing in cyber security, pre-deployment testing of AI in high-stakes areas, and advancing research on mitigating the ris
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
In our recent strategy retreat, the GWWC Leadership Team recognised that by spreading our limited resources across too many projects, we are unable to deliver the level of excellence and impact that our mission demands. True to our value of being mission accountable, we've therefore made the difficult but necessary decision to discontinue a total of 10 initiatives. By focusing our energy on fewer, more strategically aligned initiatives, we think we’ll be more likely to ultimately achieve our Big Hairy Audacious Goal of 1 million pledgers donating $3B USD to high-impact charities annually. (See our 2025 strategy.) We’d like to be transparent about the choices we made, both to hold ourselves accountable and so other organisations can take the gaps we leave into account when planning their work. As such, this post aims to: * Inform the broader EA community about changes to projects & highlight opportunities to carry these projects forward * Provide timelines for project transitions * Explain our rationale for discontinuing certain initiatives What’s changing  We've identified 10 initiatives[1] to wind down or transition. These are: * GWWC Canada * Effective Altruism Australia funding partnership * GWWC Groups * Giving Games * Charity Elections * Effective Giving Meta evaluation and grantmaking * The Donor Lottery * Translations * Hosted Funds * New licensing of the GWWC brand  Each of these is detailed in the sections below, with timelines and transition plans where applicable. How this is relevant to you  We still believe in the impact potential of many of these projects. Our decision doesn’t necessarily reflect their lack of value, but rather our need to focus at this juncture of GWWC's development.  Thus, we are actively looking for organisations and individuals interested in taking on some of these projects. If that’s you, please do reach out: see each project's section for specific contact details. Thank you for your continued support as we
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
We are excited to share a summary of our 2025 strategy, which builds on our work in 2024 and provides a vision through 2027 and beyond! Background Giving What We Can (GWWC) is working towards a world without preventable suffering or existential risk, where everyone is able to flourish. We do this by making giving effectively and significantly a cultural norm. Focus on pledges Based on our last impact evaluation[1], we have made our pledges –  and in particular the 🔸10% Pledge – the core focus of GWWC’s work.[2] We know the 🔸10% Pledge is a powerful institution, as we’ve seen almost 10,000 people take it and give nearly $50M USD to high-impact charities annually. We believe it could become a norm among at least the richest 1% — and likely a much wider segment of the population — which would cumulatively direct an enormous quantity of financial resources towards tackling the world’s most pressing problems.  We initiated this focus on pledges in early 2024, and are doubling down on it in 2025. In line with this, we are retiring various other initiatives we were previously running and which are not consistent with our new strategy. Introducing our BHAG We are setting ourselves a long-term Big Hairy Audacious Goal (BHAG) of 1 million pledgers donating $3B USD to high-impact charities annually, which we will start working towards in 2025. 1 million pledgers donating $3B USD to high-impact charities annually would be roughly equivalent to ~100x GWWC’s current scale, and could be achieved by 1% of the world’s richest 1% pledging and giving effectively. Achieving this would imply the equivalent of nearly 1 million lives being saved[3] every year. See the BHAG FAQ for more info. Working towards our BHAG Over the coming years, we expect to test various growth pathways and interventions that could get us to our BHAG, including digital marketing, partnerships with aligned organisations, community advocacy, media/PR, and direct outreach to potential pledgers. We thin
Recent opportunities in Career choice
14
Ryan Kidd
·
54