Thank you for reading! It was awesome to see your response. 

I was referring to the 'long term follow up with users to see how their careers/lives have changed.'

And super happy to elaborate. I've found myself wondering things like: 

1. Is the coaching vs. the website (vs. certain aspects of the website) more likely to lead to people making changes to their careers? Or to be more engaged in EA? Does one lead to a certain kind of change more than the other?
2. Is anything at 80K (to borrow something I read first at your website) is having a 'Scared Straight' effect?
3. Many of the first people to use 80K coaching/services have presumably been in their careers for a while now. What did they end up doing? It's hard to trace things like this, but what within it might be traceable to 80K?
4. Sometimes my friends who say they're most convinced by my EA type arguments act on EA ideas least (i.e., less than my friends who didn't initially seem as convinced/excited). Basically, immediate excitement hasn't always correlated to longterm action. Do we know if anything like this is happening and if it's impacting design at 80K? (i.e., 80K does more of thing X because it gets a response, but it doesn't translate to longterm action).
5. What could we (the larger EA community) learn from who/how 80K has convinced people to make longterm changes? (So that we could be better at convincing people to make changes too).

Thanks again!

Thanks for reading! No, just double-checked: the version I linked to in the post above is at least the most current version in the google drive -- it's labeled as being from August 2022. (I  went with the so it would involve less clicking for a reader). 

I  checked out the link you included. Content-wise, based on a quick look, it looks nearly identical to the August 2022 doc I linked to,  just with different formatting. 

I didn't want to copy-paste the whole session into the forum post, but if you look at, say, the required content at the link you gave me (the exercise, the intro "putting it into practice"), it only guides someone to the next few weeks, not straightforward advice for what to do beyond that. There is that linked 80,000K content, but it's shorter 80,000K content than in the other templates I linked to in the post. Like, hopefully, a students realizes 80,000 could take them through next steps based on that relatively short post, but it's coming in the midst of a lot of other content, and so it doesn't feel like as much of a guarantee as the other templates (that give them a much longer 80000K assignment + advice to contact them). 

I really like the idea of crowdsourcing. In conjunction with everything you said above, I've seen a lot of rejections that seem to be written by someone who seems very uncomfortable with the idea of rejection and/or isn't imagining what it's like to be on the receiving end. 

I think crowdsourcing could give a distance that allows analysis for rejection letters that they're rarely written with -- e.g., think about what impact it will have on EA, think about what impact it'll have on the recipient. 

That is great news (given the rejection). Was there anything in the templates you found particularly helpful? And were they relevant to your search?/Could have they been more relevant?

Out of the rejections I've seen, a single one linked to an org's own 'career page' and one suggested signing up for the org's mailing list (helpful, but possibly a kick in the gut if you've just been rejected? And, if you're a strong candidate, presumably you've already checked it out?). 

In terms of EA and EA-aligned orgs, I have not seen:  (1)  direction to specific roles with a paucity of candidates,  (2) 'potential good fit' suggestions, (3) direct links to other EA/EA-aligned orgs with similar openings (or direct links to orgs outside of the one applied to at all).