GiveWell Interview Questions
& Process

A recruiter from GiveWell reached out to me on LinkedIn to ask for my resume. Following that, I was invited to complete a 45-minute, unpaid, online skills exercise. This exercise has a strict 45-minute time limit. Two days later, I was informed via email that they were moving forward with other candidates whose qualifications were a better match. The email also stated that candidates not selected after the exercise wouldn't be considered for other senior positions. I didn't get to speak with anyone directly, nor did I receive any feedback on my performance in the exercise.

I went through 5 out of 6 rounds for this role. I felt good about the early interviews, but the fifth round was a letdown. I heard back a business day after the interview and was rejected without any specific feedback, just that it was a competitive pool. It's weird because they advertised 5-6 openings but only hired 3 and are still hiring. I was rejected almost two months ago. This makes me think there was more to it than just a competitive pool. If I made it through five rounds, why was I rejected so late, especially when they're still looking for people? It seems like they're chasing some 'perfect' candidate instead of hiring people who fit. The criteria aren't clear, and it feels more subjective than they let on. Honestly, the whole hiring process for this role seems like a waste of everyone's time and resources.

GiveWell's hiring process, based on my experience and others' reviews, really needs a rethink and some serious overhauling. It feels opaque, mainly because there's a lack of clarity on what they're actually looking for and how they make decisions. This secrecy is frustrating and unnecessary. They should be more transparent about their criteria and the stages involved. I also got the sense they prefer candidates who fit a very specific profile, which might overlook diverse backgrounds and experiences. Relying heavily on standardized work exercises could unintentionally filter out people with innovative ideas. This rigidity seems to contrast with truly valuing diversity. A big issue is also the complete lack of feedback for applicants. After putting in significant time on exercises and interviews, not getting any feedback feels disrespectful and unhelpful. It's a missed opportunity for everyone and makes the experience impersonal. While GiveWell might aim for fairness, the actual experience feels distant. They need more transparency, flexibility, and a human touch.

The interview process involved: a 30 min screening exercise, seemingly looking for evidence evaluation abilities. Then there were two paid work trials. The first was an in-depth analysis of evidence in the form of a meta-analysis across 4 RCTs. The second was a cost-benefit modeling exercise. Three weeks after submitting my second work trial, they informed me that they would not be continuing with my candidacy, without any feedback as to why. This is per their clearly stated policy. All in all, I thought their process was excellent. I love the work trial + blinded evaluation model. Even though I was ultimately rejected, I feel that I was treated fairly.