I think well-roundedness is maybe unfavorable for some EAs (mainly in academia), but not for a majority of EAs.
My experience from observing some of my most successful friends in non-EA orgs (policy roles, consulting, PE etc.) is that well-roundedness is a good predictor of success. Of course, no scientific proof, but you can imagine that abilities as quickly understanding social norms, showing grit, and manoeuvring in complex social (not purely intellectual) environments help you in those careers. These are things that you (partially) practice and learn in sports, board roles and some type of work you can do in college.
If you believe that you need a group of "insiders" in government and other influential organisations to progress change you should prioritise well-roundedness for a majority as well. I also think the skills above are incredibly useful in order to successfully lobby the organisations we are interested in, something a lot of EA-orgs eventually focus on as well.
Amazing update thanks. Very much interested in your fiscal sponsorship model, is it possible to indicate interest already?
Curious to hear what your current intuitions and latest updates in beliefs are on:
Thanks for this clear write-up and as many others, I definitely share some of your worries. I liked it that you wrote that the extra influx of money could make the CB-position accessible to people from different socioeconomic backgrounds, since this point seems to be a bit neglected in EA discussions.
I think it is true for many other impactful career paths that decent wages and/or some financial security (e.g. smoothening career transitions with stipends) could help to widen the pool of potential applicants, e.g. to more people from less fortunate socioeconomic backgrounds. Don't forget that many people in the lower and lower-middle income class are raised with the idea that it is important to take care of your own financial security. I have plenty of anecdotes from people in that group that didn't pursue an EA career in the past, because the wage gap and the worries about financial insecurity were just too large. I see multiple advantages coming from widening the pool to people from lower / lower middle socioeconomic classes:
Hi Tessa, although biorisks can be included in risks coming from high-priority emerging technologies, we decided for this round to focus on AI / cybersecurity risks for placements and therefore also for our training content.
After the program we will re-evaluate and possibly re-run the program including expansion to other areas (as biorisks). We will announce this on the Forum and feel free to subscribe to our newsletter to receive updates.
Hi Aryeh, really interested in this as well. Can you link me to any literature, experts, videos, software etc. that you deem valuable from DA?
Would be really useful for future training programs from Training For Good!
Wow! Spot-on Adam, I wanted to respond to this question but no need to anymore after reading this
Does membership of a political party increase the odds of landing a traineeship / internship with an MEP or is it even an requirement?
Thanks for this clear write-up. I will include this post in the content of Training For Good's Impactful Policy Careers workshop. Are you open to 1-on-1s with EAs interested in this career path? Feel free to respond in a pm.
Great idea, at TFG we have similar thoughts and are currently researching if we should run it and the best way to run a program like this. Would love to get input from people on this.