Hide table of contents

I’m in graduate school now (MPH @ Harvard), after 6 years working with a small start-up non-profit organization in India. Recently at EAG Boston, I did 1-1s with some of the smartest young people I’ve met - a sizable number finishing up college or a year/two out of college. I found myself repeating a few points of advice, and that’s usually a good cue that I should be writing them down. While folks well into their career often do a fantastic job of offering wise, usually far more well-considered advice, I believe there’s value in listening to people just a few years ahead of you. They are far more likely to remember their mistakes more accurately, and attempts to rectify them seem more relatable.

Why is this on the EA forum? EAG Boston helped me see how effective college-based EA chapters have been in inspiring younger people to participate in the movement. There’s so much energy and an even greater pressure on oneself to grow as quickly as one can. While there’s sufficient discourse on what’s worth doing, I want to see more of how to do the work.

About me: Currently, I’m a public health graduate student studying health and social behavior. Prior to this, I helped build an accelerator for founders of small, under-resourced childcare institutions to support them in integrating evidence-based practices in childcare and effective ways of their non-profit organizations. Doing this work forced me to learn ways of managing my own motivations, skills, and tantrums in a small, high-agency team! It was not a low-pressure way to learn, but I wouldn’t trade these experiences for anything else (maybe more money)

So you’ve done well in school - here’s how work can suck less for you:

Epistemic status: Slightly provocative, emerging hypotheses, rant-heavy

  1. Please don’t jump into grad school immediately! Grad school makes so much more sense when you’ve worked for a few years. You contribute more to classroom discussions, and your ability to call bullshit is greatly enhanced by existing in the professional world. I understand that a number of really smart, mostly econ-pilled EA-aligned folks want to jump into a PhD or an MPP, but if there’s one thing you take away from this post, let it be this. Your ability to make the best use of the incredible breadth of resources in grad school is so much more enhanced by knowing what you like, knowing what you’re good at, and, most importantly, knowing what’s useful out in the real world. Development contexts are so complex; people are driven by explicit/implicit incentives, and working hard at important problems involves judgment about what’s important!
  2. School is a pretty shitty training ground for real work. It’s highly likely that if you’ve consistently done well in tests, you are just really good at testing - you know what is being tested, you know the value of practice tests/previous year papers, you’re pretty aware of what you should be focusing on for the exams, and you’re able to do it in a relatively short period of time before your test. As a solidly good test-taker, I know how good this feels. It’s also a poor template for work because you need to show up every day. You’re often working towards multiple projects with results that are likely to show up 6 months or a year or two from the day you put in the work.
    1. It took me two years to learn how to show up consistently with as much energy and enthusiasm as I could muster. It was insanely long, and I wish I had worked on it more pointedly when I started!
    2. I treat my life as a series of projects, so the only thing that has worked for me is to break each massive project into smaller goals with tight timelines and super tight feedback loops about success, quality checks, and places of improvement
    3. Talk to your manager about this! They’re usually happy to help you figure out how to show up better for work.
    4. Experiment liberally - if your work is flexible and largely independently driven, attempt to use different productivity tools. I owe my life to focusmate, but I don’t need it as much anymore! Productivity is seasonal, and what’s important is that you record notes from this experience so you’re not starting from scratch each time you try to figure out how to get out of a rut.
  3. On the point of note-taking, I would also highly recommend keeping track of the feedback you receive. Literally, write it down. Why is that? It’s usually incredibly useful to make your mistakes so you can learn from them. But most people overestimate their ability to remember these learnings.
    1. For the better part of two and a half years, I maintained a document with the feedback I had received from my manager/ other mentors. The personal blends with the professional, so I would also reflect on therapy in the same document. This document played a crucial role in helping me avoid mistakes I had already made.
    2. By being able to learn from mistakes when I wasn’t so emotionally invested in the situation, I was able to build a much more realistic, detailed model of how I mess up, and why it matters. This allowed me to advocate for changes with myself with much more conviction.
    3. I made it a point to read the advice whenever I received new feedback.

      On April 19, 2022: “Repeated breaches in contract/lack of ownership affect how long a rope I’m given- more micro-management and fewer opportunities to step up”

  4. To give you some context to this entry, integrity is at the core of everything you build. I struggled with this; I still struggle with this. You must stay true to your commitments and be transparent when you cannot. Trust breaches are incredibly hard to bridge, for trust is earned through repeated action over extended periods of time. Operating in a trust deficit sucks. I can guarantee you that it’s far worse than acknowledging that you blundered and offering to clean up the mess
    1. Know your triggers. For me, when my manager asks me 5 questions in succession, I feel like I’m being put on the spot. I feel like I’m back in the classroom, and my teacher is upset with me for not knowing the answer. So, I instinctively fudge the truth of the matter to come off better than I would with a full, honest answer. It’s mostly not even a conscious decision. Once I identified this trigger, I told my manager about it. I told him that I would prefer to have these questions over email/text - so I feel less pressure. Being put on the spot is not something I can avoid forever, and I need to work through this, but it was helpful to discuss solutions with my manager.
    2. I’m also aware that what probably helped the most was going through this experience - but I would highly recommend learning from my mistake instead of dealing with this one on your own
    3. Excerpt from my feedback document about this conversation with my manager: “You have this impatient look and sigh that makes it very hard to say “repeat”; and it always makes me more conscious and likely to jump at answers instead of thinking them through. I’m letting you know that so I can consciously take more time”
  5. What’s crucial when you find out these patterns about yourself in work, is you have to remember these narratives about how you’re wired are not set in stone. Be kind to these patterns because these patterns have served you well. Don’t feel compelled to change them all at once because how you’re wired is valuable! My obsession with being perceived as smart makes it that much more likely that I would prepare for a meeting well in advance. Intentions are useful to analyze, but some actions are independently good, despite these intentions. When you do decide that some of these patterns don’t serve you well anymore, know that you can gently put them down. You can effectively reframe how you operate, acknowledging that narratives about your previous work do not need to hold true anymore.

    An entry from my feedback doc: “You’ve got to stand up for yourself when you feel like you and your work are being misinterpreted. It’s the only way you’re going to be able to break existing narratives that are pulling you down. You need to be able to call it out if you feel like someone’s belief/understanding of you and your work differs from how you see it. “

Know that this will be a slow change that requires consistent expression of the change and a willingness to make things uncomfortable when you feel like people are still holding older stories of you that aren’t true anymore. You have to give people the grace to get it wrong, but you don’t have to stay silent about it. Conversely, It’s more likely you’ll stick to it if you repeat this new commitment to yourself in public a few times.

Comments5


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Strong +1 agreement to all points

Glad you found it interesting!

Thanks for your openness. Not an easy thing to do but gives a lot value to the reader.

Also great advice

Appreciate it! Thanks

Executive summary: Transitioning from school to work requires specific strategies and mindset shifts, including consistent work habits, careful feedback tracking, and self-awareness of triggers and patterns.

Key points:

  1. Avoid immediate grad school - work experience enhances academic learning and professional judgment
  2. School success doesn't translate directly to work success - develop consistent daily performance rather than test-taking skills
  3. Track and document feedback systematically to learn from mistakes and identify patterns
  4. Identify and communicate personal triggers/challenges to managers, but work to improve them gradually
  5. Build trust through consistent follow-through on commitments; breaches of trust are costly and hard to repair
  6. Actively work to change outdated narratives about yourself at work, while being patient with the process

 

 

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Neel Nanda
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
TL;DR Having a good research track record is some evidence of good big-picture takes, but it's weak evidence. Strategic thinking is hard, and requires different skills. But people often conflate these skills, leading to excessive deference to researchers in the field, without evidence that that person is good at strategic thinking specifically. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, but it's hard, and you shouldn't assume I succeed! Introduction I often find myself giving talks or Q&As about mechanistic interpretability research. But inevitably, I'll get questions about the big picture: "What's the theory of change for interpretability?", "Is this really going to help with alignment?", "Does any of this matter if we can’t ensure all labs take alignment seriously?". And I think people take my answers to these way too seriously. These are great questions, and I'm happy to try answering them. But I've noticed a bit of a pathology: people seem to assume that because I'm (hopefully!) good at the research, I'm automatically well-qualified to answer these broader strategic questions. I think this is a mistake, a form of undue deference that is both incorrect and unhelpful. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, and I think this makes me better at my job, but this is far from sufficient. Being good at research and being good at high level strategic thinking are just fairly different skillsets! But isn’t someone being good at research strong evidence they’re also good at strategic thinking? I personally think it’s moderate evidence, but far from sufficient. One key factor is that a very hard part of strategic thinking is the lack of feedback. Your reasoning about confusing long-term factors need to extrapolate from past trends and make analogies from things you do understand better, and it can be quite hard to tell if what you're saying is complete bullshit or not. In an empirical science like mechanistic interpretability, however, you can get a lot more fe