Last updated: 4th October, 2023
<aside> 💡 Sections
</aside>
Disclaimer: many of the options listed below are in a fellowship format: they consist of readings and discussion groups. We endorse these as high-fidelity ways to transfer information; however, we want to highlight that project-based work can also be valuable. We think the impact from these projects comes largely from the development of organisers and participants. This development might be their understanding of (our best guess at) impact-relevant ideas and opportunities and how to strengthen the group/community. We encourage you to think about this if you consider project-based work. We think it’s worth noting that one of the biggest downsides/faliure modes of trying to run projects is the high project-management overhead. Projects can often be unsuccessful when participants are not extremely motivated or when the project manager is not extremely competent.
Length: 2-4 hours per week; 7 weeks
Pros: (i) Has ‘check your understanding’ flashcards for each reading; (ii) course is created by world-leading experts in the field; (iii) assumes no prior knowledge.
Cons: (i) Weekly discussion are intended to be held with an expert: if you do not have a facilitator with high levels of understanding these discussions may be far less useful (ii) is intellectually challenging and some people report not completing the course because of this.
Syllabi:
Length: 1-2 hours per week; 5 weeks. *** There are three paths, which can be run simultaneously or one-after-the-other; hence, the program could end up being 15 weeks long if you choose.
Pros: (i) Is a guided program through 80,000 Hours’ career planning document; (ii) has strong accountability mechanisms; (iii) can be personalised to individual group members’ tastes
Cons: (i) People will be be doing different things so it may be hard to keep track of progress for all your group members; (ii) impact depends on individuals being motivated and active: they cannot passively read and turn up to discussion groups.
Syllabi: