I am organizing an EA university group. I am wondering if, in general, putting this on my resume would be good or bad for getting a non-EA job.
Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
11
11
0
0
Reactions
0
0
New Answer
New Comment
2 Answers sorted by
Absolutely do so! In the eyes of the vast majority of employers, organizing a university group centered around charity shows character and energy, highly positive qualities in an employee.
I agree completely! However, I feel obliged to point out that some EAs I know intentionally play down their EA associations because they think it will harm their careers. Often, these people are thinking of working in government.
I weakly think this is a mistake for two reasons. Firstly, as Mathias said, because EA appears to be generally seen as a positive thing (similar to climate change action, according to this study). Secondly, I think Ord is right when he says we could do with more earnestness and sincerity in EA.
Alix, ex-co-director at E... (read more)
3
Toby Tremlett🔹
I'd also add that basically no one knows what EA is, and currently, when you do a quick google, you get a good impression (criticism tab aside):
(Interested to know if others get the same AI summary- not sure if it regenerates for each user, or just for search terms)
3
David T
I'll further add that most people aren't going to bother doing the quick Google, they're going to see "organised university society" and whatever two sentence summary you've got about it being charity-related and see it as a positive, although not necessarily any more positive than organising the RAG week charity or a sports team.
The bigger question is if and how you raise it as an answer to a question about your life experiences at interview
(FWIW my ad-blocked Google results for Effective Altruism are this website, the Wikipedia link and a BBC article about SBF)
If you are trying to get a US policy job than probably no, but it also depends on the section of US policy
The reader can take it or leave it given these facts, but imo it serves as a data point that someone from US Policy is pointing to this real thing.
2
JWS 🔸
Right but I don't know who you are, or what your position in the US Policy Sphere is, if you have one at all. I have no way to verify your potential background or the veracity of the information you share, which is one of the major problems with anonymous accounts.
You may be correct (though again that lack of explanation doesn't help give detail or a mechanism why or help sammy that much, as you said it depends on the section) but that isn't really the point, the only data point you provide is "intentionally anonymous person of the EAForum states opinion without supporting explanations" which is honestly pretty weak sauce
2
Throwaway81
shrug I think it would be helpful to me, and like I said the reader can take it or leave it. Thems the breaks. I think commenting from a throwaway account providing the data and letting the reader decide is better than not commenting and not providing data
4
JWS 🔸
But you haven't provided any data 🤷
Like you could explain why you think so without de-anonymising yourself, e.g. sammy shouldn't put EA on his CV in US policy because:
* Republicans are in control of most positions and they see EA as heavily democrat-coded and aren't willing to consider hiring people with it
* The intelligentsia who hire for most US policy positions see EA as cult-like and/or disgraced after FTX
* People won't understand what EA is on a CV will and discount sammy's chances compared to them putting down "ran a discussion group at university" or something like that
* You think EA is doomed/likely to collapse and sammy should pre-emptively dissasociate their career from it
Like I feel that would be interesting and useful to hear your perspective on, to the extend you can share information about it. Otherwise just jumping in with strong (and controversial?) opinions from anonymous accounts on the forum just serves to pollute the epistemic commons in my opinion.
The reader can take it or leave it given these facts, but imo it serves as a data point that someone from US Policy is pointing to this real thing.