Just to clarify, when you say EA-aligned here, do you mean roles within the EA ecosystem itself, the types of roles posted on the 80k job board, or more broadly any role where someone could plausibly have high impact on an EA-relevant cause area?

In farmed animal welfare, for example, there are many neglected, high-impact roles across government, media, environmental organizations, industry, and other spaces that I believe EAs are not applying to. This might be because of limited visibility, unclear signaling about whether these roles “count” as EA-aligned, lower perceived prestige or social validation within the community, and a tendency to default to more familiar, well-mapped pathways rather than exploring messier or less clearly defined options that require more independent judgment.

This makes me wonder whether part of the perceived talent bottleneck is less about a lack of opportunities overall, and more about how EA-aligned career paths are defined, signaled, and encouraged. If many impact-relevant roles sit outside EA organizations but are not widely recognized or supported as legitimate EA pathways, that could help explain why motivated candidates feel stuck even while important positions remain unfilled.

That said, if someone is indeed applying to roles where they could make an impact in a relevant cause area, outside of the EA ecosystem, and still not having luck over an extended period, that’s where I start to question interview skills, application quality, references, and other factors. While there is a lot of career support available in the EA space, I’m not sure we offer enough sustained 1:1 career coaching. 

Thank you for all of this essential work! I’m curious how you’re thinking about the role that advances in AI could play in repairing the evidence to impact pipeline: do you find that a significant amount of time is currently spent on manual tasks like evidence review and analysis aligned with identifying legal violations, transcription, creating exposé videos, or similar work? 

This is such a thoughtful and unique post. I love how you weave together your personal story, history, statistics, and the rise of animal agriculture. It adds so much depth and context.

I especially resonated with the line, “Through donating, though, I can associate myself with these dreams of what could have been.” That completely captures how I feel about giving as well, and it’s one of the main reasons I became a career coach (and why I now work with students!) – you can’t do everything yourself, but you can help others pursue the paths you might have taken.

Just checked out the prototype – it's cool! I like the idea of using this as a bridge while more rigorous WFF data is still being developed. Curious how you’re thinking about how this might fit alongside existing certifications or labeling schemes once WFF estimates are available (i.e. more complementary, overlapping, or something else)? And who do you see as the most promising early adopters for a tool like this?

Really appreciated this framing, Matt! I’m curious whether you have a sense of the extent to which this job-first mindset (or other mindsets which are not serving younger candidates) are reinforced by university career advising systems?

Re: institutionalizing wild animal welfare at universities:

• As you build out these hubs, do you envision WAI playing a coordinating role to keep research agendas aligned across universities and prevent the field from developing in isolated silos?
• What structural or institutional barriers within universities have you encountered or think you could encounter that could make the fellowship–hub model challenging to implement?
• Looking ahead, how do you see WAI fellows shaping not only academic research but also high-leverage institutions like USDA Wildlife Services, major conservation NGOs, and policymaking bodies?