Hide table of contents

Summary

Non-Trivial helps bright high school students start solving the world's most pressing problems.

Since our first fellowship 2 years ago, we’ve received over 35,000 applications and our alums have already gone on to co-author reports for the UN and publish at NeurIPS.

We’re now facing an unexpected funding gap of ~$360k for 2025 and ~$1M for 2026.

This post is an abridged review of 20242025 plans, and our funding gaps. If you’d like any more information, or you can help out, please email our founder Peter (peter@non-trivial.org).

About Non-Trivial

Many young people make crucial decisions that guide the rest of their lives. Non-Trivial empowers exceptional high schoolers to grapple with the question "How can I make a meaningful difference?" before facing option-constraining decisions, like what to study at university.

Our participants conduct impact-oriented and (importantly!) self-directed research on a topic that interests them. We support them with free online programs that provide mentorship, scholarships, and a global community of dedicated fellows.

Non-Trivial was founded by Peter McIntyre, who previously set up 80,000 Hours’ advising, headhunting, and job board.

Our fellows have worked on a range of problems, such as:

2024 review

Promotion and selection: 

  • We received >10,000 applications in 2024, from which ~150 fellows were selected. Since our first fellowship 2 years ago, we’ve had ~300 fellows graduate from >35,000 applications, making our program one of the most selective for teenagers globally.
  • Our fellows achieve higher average SAT scores than Harvard students (1560 compared to 1550) and about 57% of our fellows end up attending an Ivy League or top 10 Times Higher Education university.
  • We set up partnerships with top competitions (e.g. IOIISEFWSDCAMC).
  • However, because there were many promising applicants we couldn’t accept, we believe we made a mistake in not trying to increase the number of top scorers on the (SAT-like) puzzles on our application.

Fellowship: 

  • We had 132 fellows graduate from the fellowship in 2024.
  • Likelihood to recommend the fellowship increased from 8.5 in 2023 to 9.0 (out of 10, as are all scores below).
  • Similar to 2023, ~45% of 2024 fellows identify as female/non-binary/other as their gender and ~15% as an ethnicity that’s not Asian/White/“Prefer not to say”.
  • We rewrote three worksheets to improve project selection, resulting in an increased subjective usefulness rating for worksheets increasing from 6.8 to 7.8.
  • We tested speaker Q&As with Matt Clifford, Rachel Glennerster, Peter Singer, and Yoshua Bengio, which were rated as the second-most useful part of the fellowship (8.1) after the community Discord (8.1).
  • However, we missed our target for the number of fellows (350) as we canceled two out of three planned cohorts to make more progress on hiring.

Impact:

  • We ran a survey of previous fellows and finalists (36% response rate).
  • We learned about the impressive work from some of our alums, like co-authoring a UN report and publishing at NeurIPS.
  • We learned of some promising alums who credit Non-Trivial with helping them have more impact. Contact peter@non-trivial.org if you’d like to learn more.

Hiring: 

  • We hired Stefan Torges as Head of Fellowship, who ran selection and the fellowship.
  • We hired Dr Mary Renaud as our Head of Outreach and Communications.
  • We missed our hiring targets due to overestimating our capacity.

Safeguarding and community health:

  • We take the health, safety, and intellectual autonomy of our participants very seriously.
  • We completed a review of our program to ensure participants are forming their own views about the ideas that they encounter in our programs (“intellectual autonomy”), particularly those associated with effective altruism. As a result, we rewrote our worksheets, made our prize rubric cause agnostic, rewrote the curriculum and added more EA criticism, and ran EA criticism events and Discord discussions.
  • We completed new program risk assessments and updated previous assessments for program changes, which were reviewed by legal counsel.

Track record

Our participants (ages 14-20) typically have a multi-year lag before they are able to help solve pressing problems in the world. That makes it hard to assess the impact of our programs at this point because it has been only two years since our first program.

So instead of focusing on direct contributions at this stage, we gauge our expected impact by looking at:

  • Outlier talent: Do we receive applications from a globally representative group of exceptional young people?
  • Program performance: Do participants report enjoying and getting value from our programs?
  • Impact stories: Do alums on a path to making a big difference attribute some of their impact to us? Please get in touch with Peter if you’d like to see these impact stories.

To help assess these factors, we analyzed the exit survey from our July 2024 cohort and conducted an impact survey among previous fellows and finalists. Our impact survey had a 36% response rate (n=164 responses out of 176 fellows from 2022/2023 and 278 finalists from 2024). Some results are reported below.

Outlier talent

Overall, our fellows are significantly above average high school graduates in attending top universities and SAT test scores.

 2023 Fellows2024 Finalists2024 Fellows

Average SAT scores

(Harvard average: 1550)

1564 (n=37)1533 (n=35)1558 (n=61)

Share of top 10 THE or Ivy League unis

of those admitted to a university

67% (n=48)20% (n=20)43% (n=37)

Share of AIME qualifiers

of those who reported AMC scores

86% (n=7)72% (n=18)84% (n=37)

 

Gender

Among admitted fellows, 54% indicated Male or Prefer not to say as their gender. 46% indicated FemaleNon-binary, or Other.

 

 

Race/ethnicity

Among admitted fellows, 86% indicated either Asian / Pacific IslanderWhite / Caucasian, or Prefer not to say. Approximately 14% of our fellows indicated any of Black or African Or African American/British/…OtherAmerican Indian or Alaskan Native, or Hispanic.

 

Program performance

Participants generally reported being satisfied with and helped by our programs. Scores in the table below are out of 10 unless otherwise indicated.

 2023 Fellows2024 Fellows
Number of graduated fellows161132
Number of graduated finalists[1]NA420
Likelihood to recommend8.59.0
Fellowship satisfactionNA8.24
Good use of time8.628.9
NT helped me engage with the question of how I could make a differenceNA9.2
NT helped me take actionNA9.0
NT gave me confidence I could make a differenceNA9.2
I expect to stay in touch with friends I met through NT6.37.5

 

Our 2025 plans

In 2025, we’ll prioritize better empowering our students to choose a problem they’re passionate about and making our program more appealing to our highest potential applicants.

How many participants we accept and staff we hire is dependent on our fundraising efforts.

 

2025

 MinimalBaselineExpansion
Core staff (end of year)335
Research Foundations Trainees500800800
Research Fellows50150150
Research Scholars61212

Below is a summary of our OKRs for 2025

1. Help participants engage critically with the question of how they can make a difference.

  • Primary key result: “I felt empowered to choose the problem I research.” (Likert scale; exact target TBD)

2. Reach more of our most gifted target audience.

  • Primary key result: Increase number of top scorers on our application puzzle from 53 to 100

3. Increase the number of top projects.

  • Primary key result: 30% top projects scoring above 8/10 at Demo Day (from 18%) or its equivalent, as scored by staff with input from subject-matter experts.

Funding gaps

We’re facing an unexpected funding gap after Good Ventures' exit from high school programs, though our operations are funded through most of 2025.

So we can plan ahead, we're seeking ~$1M for our 2026 core operations. Early funding certainty is important for retaining our team and because we begin making program and partnership decisions in Q2 2025.

Additionally, our programs (being online and low marginal time cost) are highly scalable and primarily funding constrained. If we receive an extra ~$360k in commitments before March 1 2025, we’d be able to accept another 100 promising fellows to match our 2024 capacity.

Our lead grantmaker at Open Philanthropy says:

"I think Non-Trivial is filling what is currently a pretty neglected niche identifying and supporting talented high-school students; our estimates suggest they meet OP’s cost-effectiveness bar for this kind of outreach work. I would like to see them get funded."

If this is something you might consider helping out with, please email our founder Peter (peter@non-trivial.org).

  1. ^

     We are changing the name of the Finalist Program to Research Foundations Program.

Comments1


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Donated. 

I've been hugely impressed by the NT fellows and finalists I came across in my work at 80k and it seems like NT was either their first exposure to EA ideas or the first meaningful opportunity to actively apply the ideas (which can be just as important). I imagine uni groups are well in your debt for your role in helping finalists/fellows connect ahead of starting university too.

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
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
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