What do you think?
Rate this book
80,000 Hours: Find a fulfilling career that does good
Find a fulfilling career that tackles the world's most pressing problems, using this guide based on five years of research alongside academics at Oxford. You have about 80,000 hours in your 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, for 40 years. This means your choice of career is one of the most important decisions you’ll ever make. Make the right choices, and you can help solve some of the world’s most pressing problems, as well as have a more rewarding, interesting life. For such an important decision, however, there’s surprisingly little good advice out there. Most career advice focuses on things like how to write a CV, and much of the rest is just (misleading) platitudes like “follow your passion”. Most people we speak to don’t even use career advice – they just speak to friends and try to figure it out for themselves. When it comes to helping others with your career, the advice usually assumes you need to work as a teacher, doctor, charity worker, and so on, even though these paths might not be a good fit for you, and were not what the highest-impact people in history did. This guide is based on five years of research conducted alongside academics at the University of Oxford. It aims to help you find a career you enjoy, you’re good at, and that tackles the world’s most pressing problems. It covers topics 1. What makes for a dream job, and why “follow your passion” can be misleading. 2. Why the most effective ways to make a difference aren’t always the obvious ones like working at a charity, or becoming a doctor. 3. How to compare global problems, like climate change and education, in terms of their scale and urgency. 4. How to discover and develop your strengths. It’s also full of practical tips and tools. At the end, you'll have a plan to use your career in a way that's fulfilling and does good. What people are saying “Based on evidence and good sense, not platitudes” - Steven Pinker, New York Times bestselling author Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard University. “This incredible group is helping people have a greater social impact with their careers.” - Sue Desmond-Hellmann, CEO of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. “Every college grad should read this” - Tim Urban, creator of Wait But Why. Read more online This book is based on the free guide you can find on the 80,000 Hours website, where you can find many more articles and our most up-to-date content. All profits from the book are used to fund 80,000 Hours, expanding our research and enabling us to reach more people. About the authors 80,000 Hours is an independent non-profit founded in Oxford in 2011. It performs research into career choice, and provides online and in-person advice. Benjamin Todd is the CEO and co-founder of 80,000 Hours. He grew the organization from a student society at Oxford to a non-profit that's raised $1.3m in donations, and has 100,000 monthly readers. He has a Master’s degree in Physics and Philosophy from Oxford; has published in climate physics; and speaks Chinese, badly. Ben is advised by the rest of the 80,000 Hours team, including Professor Will MacAskill, author of Doing Good Better, co-founder of the Effective Altruism movement, and the youngest tenured professor of philosophy in the world.
276 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 28, 2016
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 225 reviews
June 25, 2020
I have mixed feelings about this book. There were a number of points in the book that felt implicitly elitist. I found Peter Singer's 'evangelizing' of effective altruism more compelling, but I've come to have quite strong reservations about this obsession with 'effectiveness' and 'efficiency'. I've sometimes felt effective altruism (EA) implies that if you're not the very best at something (like a global development job) you're simply wasting resources and should get out of the way (and just earn to give). The logical conclusion I suppose would be 'technocracy'. I think the arguments are important to consider, but I can only speak as someone that is obviously not as smart nor as competent as the people pushing this movement; and from this position it feels quite discouraging, and I've often felt my life to be less valuable and that I don't have anything particularly worthwhile to contribute to issues like global poverty.
Also the AI terror stuff is weird to me. I've read ~25% of Nick Bostrom's Superintelligence, and it's interesting and compelling. But I also think Kate Crawford has provided really important critiques of AI's 'white guy problem', which I also think this is a problem for 'effective altruism'. Utilitarianism always puts its narrow and measurable notion of good, before more ambiguous and difficult to measure issues of social justice and relations of domination. The interesting thing about utilitarian logic (as it exists in 'effective altruism') is that assumes that 'we' (believes in EA) can be and should be 'in control'. And in its pragmatism, it focuses its energy on ensuring one strives to take hold of places of 'control' -- that is, its task is to increase its 'power'. This is the idea behind achieving more 'career capital' as Todd writes in the book. Becoming 'influential' is central to 'effective altruism', because that is how one achieves a greater 'amount of good' overall. If anything, this alignment with values of achieving more power to achieve more good, is the logic behind most empires. America works extra hours to increase its military power because it has the impression it has a superior moral compass to all the other countries that might surpass its own military power. I've come to be rather skeptical that jobs EA considers as relatively harmless are really that harmless. Also I'm not very taken by effective altruism's obsession with 'rationality'.
The one thing I think EA offers those oriented to 'social justice' is that you don't have to wait for the revolution (or for that matter radical reforms, e.g. tax reform or better social programs) before good can be done, and I think EA makes a good case that giving ('donating') can make a difference and you don't have to be that cynical about it. I think it's a good encouragement for rich liberals who speak the language of social change to put more of their money into the values they espouse. There exists a range of options all the way to giving everything you earn above the median income, or even anything above what the government defines as a 'living wage'. And encouraging others to do likewise. However, there is a problem, in my opinion with focusing giving towards 'causes' that are always measurable. This alienated way of giving ignores giving within communities of relationships, which often are not measurable.
Being utilitarian in orientation, the book was appropriately 'useful' in a number of respects. That's the main rationale behind my rating. Particularly in its recommendations for job hunting, becoming a more focused person, ideas about how to organize time, the psychology of passion and happiness. Really practical everyday things. And in that respect it has actually changed my life. I've become a morning person since, and I'm slightly better at time management. EA also appeals to 'rationality' to make a good case for the importance of advocacy, which those oriented to 'social justice' work do quite well in my opinion.
This book would have been very helpful in high school, helping to illuminate the landscape more clearly about career options (advantages/disadvantages), but I think it should also be complemented with other perspectives. It has, in my opinion, a somewhat narrow conception of a good career.
Also the AI terror stuff is weird to me. I've read ~25% of Nick Bostrom's Superintelligence, and it's interesting and compelling. But I also think Kate Crawford has provided really important critiques of AI's 'white guy problem', which I also think this is a problem for 'effective altruism'. Utilitarianism always puts its narrow and measurable notion of good, before more ambiguous and difficult to measure issues of social justice and relations of domination. The interesting thing about utilitarian logic (as it exists in 'effective altruism') is that assumes that 'we' (believes in EA) can be and should be 'in control'. And in its pragmatism, it focuses its energy on ensuring one strives to take hold of places of 'control' -- that is, its task is to increase its 'power'. This is the idea behind achieving more 'career capital' as Todd writes in the book. Becoming 'influential' is central to 'effective altruism', because that is how one achieves a greater 'amount of good' overall. If anything, this alignment with values of achieving more power to achieve more good, is the logic behind most empires. America works extra hours to increase its military power because it has the impression it has a superior moral compass to all the other countries that might surpass its own military power. I've come to be rather skeptical that jobs EA considers as relatively harmless are really that harmless. Also I'm not very taken by effective altruism's obsession with 'rationality'.
The one thing I think EA offers those oriented to 'social justice' is that you don't have to wait for the revolution (or for that matter radical reforms, e.g. tax reform or better social programs) before good can be done, and I think EA makes a good case that giving ('donating') can make a difference and you don't have to be that cynical about it. I think it's a good encouragement for rich liberals who speak the language of social change to put more of their money into the values they espouse. There exists a range of options all the way to giving everything you earn above the median income, or even anything above what the government defines as a 'living wage'. And encouraging others to do likewise. However, there is a problem, in my opinion with focusing giving towards 'causes' that are always measurable. This alienated way of giving ignores giving within communities of relationships, which often are not measurable.
Being utilitarian in orientation, the book was appropriately 'useful' in a number of respects. That's the main rationale behind my rating. Particularly in its recommendations for job hunting, becoming a more focused person, ideas about how to organize time, the psychology of passion and happiness. Really practical everyday things. And in that respect it has actually changed my life. I've become a morning person since, and I'm slightly better at time management. EA also appeals to 'rationality' to make a good case for the importance of advocacy, which those oriented to 'social justice' work do quite well in my opinion.
This book would have been very helpful in high school, helping to illuminate the landscape more clearly about career options (advantages/disadvantages), but I think it should also be complemented with other perspectives. It has, in my opinion, a somewhat narrow conception of a good career.
April 28, 2018
Useful and thought-provoking, though premised on elitist principles.
This book raised a lot of personal questions that are helpful to examine while trying to figure out career - how do I want to dedicate most of my time? What is the kind of impact I want to make? What is my definition of "doing good"?
Where the book falls apart for me is that, aside from actively being in a select few, narrowly scoped careers, the book says the best way to "do good" is to earn as much money as possible with the goal of giving part of your earnings or influence as many people as possible to effect change by being in a "prestigious" position.
I have a problem with this because the very people who strive to make lots of money and attain positions of influence contribute an outsized portion to the global problems presented in this book. Also, those people have a vested interest in keeping the status quo of the global caste system. And this book is basically telling people to be like them.
Yes, it's not exactly the same - the book tells people to make lots of money or attain positions of power so they can effect change with donations or their prestigious position, but this book is still perpetuating and participating in the system that created these global problems in the first place. At its core 80,000 Hours is a book written by an elitist for elitists. War and pillaging other nations started with elitist thinking - "We're better than them so we deserve to get all their resources." Fast forward a couple centuries and "Now we feel guilty about our incredibly unequal distribution of global wealth so we'll write books funneling people into high-paying careers so they can send part of it over to these poorer countries."
It's more so a bandaid than anything.
I don't know if making money is the best way to do good. I think teaching people to go for money might cause more harm than good. I don't know if increasing human population is inherently good.
What about increasing the number of people to pursue innately human and gratifying endeavors like making art and creating music, increasing the quality of humans instead of the quantity, teaching people to live in peace and be satisfied with what they need not what they want, and teaching people to think for themselves?
To be fair, this is all outside the scope of this book. And the book did have a short disclaimer midway through about your own definition of social impact possibly differing from theirs, and values like justice and equality not being the focus of this book. Hence, 3 stars because the book really is useful, but my own moral qualms were kind of getting in the way with digesting its advice.
This book raised a lot of personal questions that are helpful to examine while trying to figure out career - how do I want to dedicate most of my time? What is the kind of impact I want to make? What is my definition of "doing good"?
Where the book falls apart for me is that, aside from actively being in a select few, narrowly scoped careers, the book says the best way to "do good" is to earn as much money as possible with the goal of giving part of your earnings or influence as many people as possible to effect change by being in a "prestigious" position.
I have a problem with this because the very people who strive to make lots of money and attain positions of influence contribute an outsized portion to the global problems presented in this book. Also, those people have a vested interest in keeping the status quo of the global caste system. And this book is basically telling people to be like them.
Yes, it's not exactly the same - the book tells people to make lots of money or attain positions of power so they can effect change with donations or their prestigious position, but this book is still perpetuating and participating in the system that created these global problems in the first place. At its core 80,000 Hours is a book written by an elitist for elitists. War and pillaging other nations started with elitist thinking - "We're better than them so we deserve to get all their resources." Fast forward a couple centuries and "Now we feel guilty about our incredibly unequal distribution of global wealth so we'll write books funneling people into high-paying careers so they can send part of it over to these poorer countries."
It's more so a bandaid than anything.
I don't know if making money is the best way to do good. I think teaching people to go for money might cause more harm than good. I don't know if increasing human population is inherently good.
What about increasing the number of people to pursue innately human and gratifying endeavors like making art and creating music, increasing the quality of humans instead of the quantity, teaching people to live in peace and be satisfied with what they need not what they want, and teaching people to think for themselves?
To be fair, this is all outside the scope of this book. And the book did have a short disclaimer midway through about your own definition of social impact possibly differing from theirs, and values like justice and equality not being the focus of this book. Hence, 3 stars because the book really is useful, but my own moral qualms were kind of getting in the way with digesting its advice.
November 30, 2021
If you're not interested in authors' research, history, background, interviews they've take and just trust them, then this book's content could be zipped into just two pages or less.
- Choose the path solving one of the important problems
- Also mind that some of the important problems gain much less attention, try to choose among those
- Choose the path with the biggest leverage, e.g. impact you could have and / or resources you could manage
- Choose the path that fits you personally
These factors don't sump up, but multiply!
Generally, the best careers, according to those factors are (without a specific field of implication):
- R&D
- Government
- Effective non-profits & "Earn to give" (AKA Effective Altruism)
I won't list all the problems (fields of implication), just read the book (or just its ToC) or their site for them.
However…
I think authors are too alarmist about AI. They've made a research, true, but as a software developer I don't understand a lot of their ethical concerns and fears.
Although authors state that biotech and pharmaceutics are important, they are not among the priorities. Well, recent COVID-19 outbreak shows that it is important and the humanity was not well-prepared. And, from my narrow-minded / centrist / realist point of view it's more important then "navigating AI research".
Interesting idea: the world needs more experts in China, Russia, India and other сrouching tigers and hidden dragons. Powerful countries, that are too alien for western culture.
And, yes, the authors seem to have a huge bias towards western culture and top-notch western universities' degrees. I don't remember that being stated explicitly in the book, but it was somewhere on their site: all the content is targeted mostly on US and UK -based graduates.
So, if you're a slavic immigrant with pretty narrow career path and vision in your thirties, like me, then this book is just a good read for a few nighs and maybe an interesting concept to know. But not more than that.
- Choose the path solving one of the important problems
- Also mind that some of the important problems gain much less attention, try to choose among those
- Choose the path with the biggest leverage, e.g. impact you could have and / or resources you could manage
- Choose the path that fits you personally
These factors don't sump up, but multiply!
Generally, the best careers, according to those factors are (without a specific field of implication):
- R&D
- Government
- Effective non-profits & "Earn to give" (AKA Effective Altruism)
I won't list all the problems (fields of implication), just read the book (or just its ToC) or their site for them.
However…
I think authors are too alarmist about AI. They've made a research, true, but as a software developer I don't understand a lot of their ethical concerns and fears.
Although authors state that biotech and pharmaceutics are important, they are not among the priorities. Well, recent COVID-19 outbreak shows that it is important and the humanity was not well-prepared. And, from my narrow-minded / centrist / realist point of view it's more important then "navigating AI research".
Interesting idea: the world needs more experts in China, Russia, India and other сrouching tigers and hidden dragons. Powerful countries, that are too alien for western culture.
And, yes, the authors seem to have a huge bias towards western culture and top-notch western universities' degrees. I don't remember that being stated explicitly in the book, but it was somewhere on their site: all the content is targeted mostly on US and UK -based graduates.
So, if you're a slavic immigrant with pretty narrow career path and vision in your thirties, like me, then this book is just a good read for a few nighs and maybe an interesting concept to know. But not more than that.
September 12, 2022
The book is good for anyone, who doesn't know what to do with their life, and is just out of high school/college/university. Why did I read it then? Because of its thesis of effective altruism. I wanted to learn more about how one arrives at its conclusions and also what philosophy fuels the arguments.
Sadly, I was not impressed and there are a lot of holes to poke. For example, the book claims that becoming a doctor is relatively low impact, so it's not really worth it. But it also claims that being an assistant to a world-class researcher is high impact, because in a sense you are making that research happen. Can you see the flaws in this reasoning? Let me point them out.
Firstly, the only reason they see being a doctor as low impact, is because there are a lot of doctors and you are not likely to make much of a difference. But that's kinda dumb, because medicine has a ton of problems (refer to Ben Goldacre's Bad Science and Bad Pharma, as well as Science-Based Medicine), which you can aim to solve, especially if you are the kind of person to read this book. You can have tons of impact as a doctor, if you so wish. If you are just going with the flow though, you wouldn't even care to read the book, would you? So it's a moot point that being a doctor is low impact.
Secondly, according to the book's own thesis, having second-hand impact is just as important, so being an assistant researcher can indeed be very impactful. But why not extend that to third-hand impact, fourth-hand impact and so on? I mean, the babysitter of that researcher's kids is effectively allowing the research to happen, so impact, right? At least that's right in line with the book's logic, but the book doesn't actually say anything about that and would classify babysitting as a low-to-zero-impact job. However, logically speaking, as long as you are not in an actively harmful field, you are actually making huge impact, you just don't know the degrees of separation (though scientifically speaking, they are fewer than 6 most likely).
I don't know, the book can be a useful guide, but its underlying philosophy is a bit questionable. Yes, I understand the book is not supposed to be this great defense of the philosophy, but the author TRIES to convince you he's right in the first part of the book. So what's that about then, if the arguments are weak? Not to mention that utilitarianism and consequentialist ethics grind my gears. Though that's a completely separate issue and I don't base my assessment on it.
Sadly, I was not impressed and there are a lot of holes to poke. For example, the book claims that becoming a doctor is relatively low impact, so it's not really worth it. But it also claims that being an assistant to a world-class researcher is high impact, because in a sense you are making that research happen. Can you see the flaws in this reasoning? Let me point them out.
Firstly, the only reason they see being a doctor as low impact, is because there are a lot of doctors and you are not likely to make much of a difference. But that's kinda dumb, because medicine has a ton of problems (refer to Ben Goldacre's Bad Science and Bad Pharma, as well as Science-Based Medicine), which you can aim to solve, especially if you are the kind of person to read this book. You can have tons of impact as a doctor, if you so wish. If you are just going with the flow though, you wouldn't even care to read the book, would you? So it's a moot point that being a doctor is low impact.
Secondly, according to the book's own thesis, having second-hand impact is just as important, so being an assistant researcher can indeed be very impactful. But why not extend that to third-hand impact, fourth-hand impact and so on? I mean, the babysitter of that researcher's kids is effectively allowing the research to happen, so impact, right? At least that's right in line with the book's logic, but the book doesn't actually say anything about that and would classify babysitting as a low-to-zero-impact job. However, logically speaking, as long as you are not in an actively harmful field, you are actually making huge impact, you just don't know the degrees of separation (though scientifically speaking, they are fewer than 6 most likely).
I don't know, the book can be a useful guide, but its underlying philosophy is a bit questionable. Yes, I understand the book is not supposed to be this great defense of the philosophy, but the author TRIES to convince you he's right in the first part of the book. So what's that about then, if the arguments are weak? Not to mention that utilitarianism and consequentialist ethics grind my gears. Though that's a completely separate issue and I don't base my assessment on it.
February 21, 2017
The premise of the 80,000 hours project appeals to me - think critically, in-depth and vastly, about your career's trajectory and how you can create the most positive and thoughtful impact along your path. However, this book does not measure up to the expanse of this project. It is a second-string rehash of the website, which is superior in terms of functionality and comprehensiveness. The book version is static and dangerously authoritative, where the website allows for personalization and broader, more dynamic thinking. Also, bear in mind that this project is UK-centric.
February 4, 2022
Don’t listen to the audiobook. The quality is horrible and the voice actor makes numerous mistakes and mispronunciations.
However, this is a book that I think absolutely every high school junior/senior or college freshman should read prior to picking a major or even deciding if college is right for them.
However, this is a book that I think absolutely every high school junior/senior or college freshman should read prior to picking a major or even deciding if college is right for them.
February 17, 2019
Whish I could have read this some 15 years ago. Great summary of your options to make a difference where it really matters. Even if you've started many years ago. Seems like a book to fall back to, when one has to make some difficult altruist career choices.
December 29, 2017
Toolkit for an impactful life well lived
This book is perfect for anyone who wants to augment their social impact, no matter what their current job, dream job, aspiration, and interests are. If someone is making over $50,000 a year for example with no dependents, you are in the top 1% of the world. Even if you have no intention of any career change, this book explains ways to maximize your global impact with effective altruism. Most of us have roughly 80,000 hours that we will devote to our careers over the course of our lives. Would you make more of an impact on global issues (global disease, pandemics, poverty, climate change) or save more lives by pursuing a high income in private sector so you can earn more to give more? Or perhaps by being a low paid NGO worker? Those with a high income could donate a portion of their income to effective charities, saving between 10 or more lives a year, which rivals or exceeds the lives she could have saved per year by becoming an additional medical professional in a country with strong medical resources and institutions, although this equilibrium might change if she focuses on high impact research or public health outcomes as well. Any short review of this book will really not do it justice, as the tips on career opportunities, life satisfaction analysis, global suffering alleviation considerations, job hunting, and communities is invaluable. A short important read for everyone, even if you love your job!
This book is perfect for anyone who wants to augment their social impact, no matter what their current job, dream job, aspiration, and interests are. If someone is making over $50,000 a year for example with no dependents, you are in the top 1% of the world. Even if you have no intention of any career change, this book explains ways to maximize your global impact with effective altruism. Most of us have roughly 80,000 hours that we will devote to our careers over the course of our lives. Would you make more of an impact on global issues (global disease, pandemics, poverty, climate change) or save more lives by pursuing a high income in private sector so you can earn more to give more? Or perhaps by being a low paid NGO worker? Those with a high income could donate a portion of their income to effective charities, saving between 10 or more lives a year, which rivals or exceeds the lives she could have saved per year by becoming an additional medical professional in a country with strong medical resources and institutions, although this equilibrium might change if she focuses on high impact research or public health outcomes as well. Any short review of this book will really not do it justice, as the tips on career opportunities, life satisfaction analysis, global suffering alleviation considerations, job hunting, and communities is invaluable. A short important read for everyone, even if you love your job!
October 26, 2021
although the premise of the book might seem cheap, it has provided me with a reasonably valuable framework to try and lay down my future career in a rational manner. to properly evalute it, i would probably need to read more books from the ‘career advice’ genre. i might do that sonner rather than later, as it makes the most sense to read them now.
February 18, 2017
A solid introduction to the website. Best for quickly skimming, and for readers under 30 (preferably under 25). Not a comprehensive guide, but having read a lot of other material from a lot of other sources, I found that this book contained most of the material from the top 10% of what I'd read.
I wish there'd been more profiles of people who've succeeded using 80k-type strategies to move into various jobs. Perhaps that's available on the website somewhere?
I wish there'd been more profiles of people who've succeeded using 80k-type strategies to move into various jobs. Perhaps that's available on the website somewhere?
December 2, 2022
Time to go back to grad school for economics
August 8, 2023
Kannski kominn tími á að ég lesi eitthvað svona.
Fín bók og vel ígrundað, gæti verið betra að lesa efnið á síðunni þeirra samt því það er nýlegra.
Það var kannski aðeins of mikil áhersla á 'do good' fyrir minn smekk en hugsanlega er það hollt.
Fín bók og vel ígrundað, gæti verið betra að lesa efnið á síðunni þeirra samt því það er nýlegra.
Það var kannski aðeins of mikil áhersla á 'do good' fyrir minn smekk en hugsanlega er það hollt.
December 28, 2022
Like several other readers, I'm not sure how to rate this book. I'm a long-time listener of the 80k podcast, so I'm very familiar with the way of thinking and the topics in the book.
Let's start with the positive: when listening to the podcast, I often get the idea that only truly exceptional people should walk this path and I'm not one of them. The book seemed to cover a wider group of people and gave me the feeling that, at least in terms of talent, I could be someone that does good with their career. If I had read something like this when I was much younger, I'm sure it would have been a great boost for my career and would have given me much more direction than I had in real life when I started out.
That said, it is quite elitist. The book seems to assume that if you want to study something, you can just go study that thing. That if you want a job in field X, you can somehow magically get that job. Even if it's "just" as a freelancer or intern and not the specific thing you wanted to do. It assumes that you just have the luxury of exploring jobs and that you have friends or family where you can crash for several months if somehow it all doesn't work out.
It must be great to live in the world of the authors. I don't.
They have this plan A/B/Z model, which I like in theory, but they don't really dig into what plan Z should be if you don't live in this magic world of backup options. They clearly know that not everyone is in the same situation, because they do say this: "If you do face serious risks, however, such as having people who depend on your income, then you'll want to seriously consider what you would do if Plan A and B don't work out. Knowing the downside makes it less scary, and having a back-up plan makes it more likely you'll cope." And that's it. That's the entirety of the discussion of how to approach this if you don't live in magic world of jolly career exploring. Seems a bit light for an organisation that has 4-hour long podcasts and blogposts with tens of thousands of words on other topics.
I had similar issues with the section on networking, though it is much more comprehensive than the discussion on "Plan Z". It seems to think that networking is something anyone can just do. As if people with social anxiety or autism etc just don't exist.
The two points above lead me to think that, even though in terms of talent I might just be the kind of person that does good with their career, in all other areas I'm just not who this is aimed at. I guess that's fine if that is what the authors intended, but then just say it out loud.
Maybe there's a market for an 80000 hours spin-off aimed at the less fortunate among us (and yes, I know I'm still part of the 2% in global terms), that guides the people that don't 100% match the 80k profile. We'll probably do "less good" than the people 80k has in mind, but it still seems better than just having any job?
Let's start with the positive: when listening to the podcast, I often get the idea that only truly exceptional people should walk this path and I'm not one of them. The book seemed to cover a wider group of people and gave me the feeling that, at least in terms of talent, I could be someone that does good with their career. If I had read something like this when I was much younger, I'm sure it would have been a great boost for my career and would have given me much more direction than I had in real life when I started out.
That said, it is quite elitist. The book seems to assume that if you want to study something, you can just go study that thing. That if you want a job in field X, you can somehow magically get that job. Even if it's "just" as a freelancer or intern and not the specific thing you wanted to do. It assumes that you just have the luxury of exploring jobs and that you have friends or family where you can crash for several months if somehow it all doesn't work out.
It must be great to live in the world of the authors. I don't.
They have this plan A/B/Z model, which I like in theory, but they don't really dig into what plan Z should be if you don't live in this magic world of backup options. They clearly know that not everyone is in the same situation, because they do say this: "If you do face serious risks, however, such as having people who depend on your income, then you'll want to seriously consider what you would do if Plan A and B don't work out. Knowing the downside makes it less scary, and having a back-up plan makes it more likely you'll cope." And that's it. That's the entirety of the discussion of how to approach this if you don't live in magic world of jolly career exploring. Seems a bit light for an organisation that has 4-hour long podcasts and blogposts with tens of thousands of words on other topics.
I had similar issues with the section on networking, though it is much more comprehensive than the discussion on "Plan Z". It seems to think that networking is something anyone can just do. As if people with social anxiety or autism etc just don't exist.
The two points above lead me to think that, even though in terms of talent I might just be the kind of person that does good with their career, in all other areas I'm just not who this is aimed at. I guess that's fine if that is what the authors intended, but then just say it out loud.
Maybe there's a market for an 80000 hours spin-off aimed at the less fortunate among us (and yes, I know I'm still part of the 2% in global terms), that guides the people that don't 100% match the 80k profile. We'll probably do "less good" than the people 80k has in mind, but it still seems better than just having any job?
December 31, 2022
If you spend 80 000 hours in average in your lifetime at your job, wouldn´t you choose one that benefits the world and has a positive impact? That´s the premise of the book.
I DO like the fact that they i)justify this idea ii)study which careers are more likely to be effective at having that impact iii)drawing a roadmap on the biggest career paths and the ways you could escalate. There is also some quite good advice on how to figure what you want to study, how to build career capital, what to look for in your dream job, how to negotatiate your salary, when to make certain job decisions, etc.
I DO NOT like the fact that the book is VERY elitist at times (it has a clear privilege bias) and a lean towards careers that are not liberal arts. It also pushes Effective Altruism (which is something I don´t disagree with but which will not vibe with everyone) and it´s not really clear from the book extract. Some examples are:
"as a college graduate in a developed country today, you have an enormous opportunity to help others through your career."
"Thinking more broadly, Roger Bacon and Galileo pioneered the scientific method, without which none of these discoveries would have been possible (along with the industrial revolution and much more). You could make a good case for their work having a far greater impact still."
"We know we’re rich, but we don’t think of ourselves as the richest people in the world – we’re not the bankers, CEOs or celebrities. But actually, if you earn $53,000 per year and don’t have kids, then globally speaking, you are the 1%. As we saw, the average US college graduate will earn $68,000 over their lives, so if you’re reading this, you will probably be somewhere in that big spike on the right of the graph"
"Since we introduced the concept of earning to give in 2011, hundreds of people have taken it up and stuck with it. Most give around 30% of their income, and some more than 50%. Collectively, they’ll donate tens of millions of dollars to high impact charities in the coming years."
...
Bottomline being, good career advice, not very grounded in terms of socioeconomic positions though. There is a lot of privilege not being challenged. I would just recommend reading it if you do agree with working for a purpose, but being VERY aware of the lens through which the authors see the world, and how it´s different depending on socioeconomic status and countries in which you live to work towards certain causes, even if memorable.
I DO like the fact that they i)justify this idea ii)study which careers are more likely to be effective at having that impact iii)drawing a roadmap on the biggest career paths and the ways you could escalate. There is also some quite good advice on how to figure what you want to study, how to build career capital, what to look for in your dream job, how to negotatiate your salary, when to make certain job decisions, etc.
I DO NOT like the fact that the book is VERY elitist at times (it has a clear privilege bias) and a lean towards careers that are not liberal arts. It also pushes Effective Altruism (which is something I don´t disagree with but which will not vibe with everyone) and it´s not really clear from the book extract. Some examples are:
"as a college graduate in a developed country today, you have an enormous opportunity to help others through your career."
"Thinking more broadly, Roger Bacon and Galileo pioneered the scientific method, without which none of these discoveries would have been possible (along with the industrial revolution and much more). You could make a good case for their work having a far greater impact still."
"We know we’re rich, but we don’t think of ourselves as the richest people in the world – we’re not the bankers, CEOs or celebrities. But actually, if you earn $53,000 per year and don’t have kids, then globally speaking, you are the 1%. As we saw, the average US college graduate will earn $68,000 over their lives, so if you’re reading this, you will probably be somewhere in that big spike on the right of the graph"
"Since we introduced the concept of earning to give in 2011, hundreds of people have taken it up and stuck with it. Most give around 30% of their income, and some more than 50%. Collectively, they’ll donate tens of millions of dollars to high impact charities in the coming years."
...
Bottomline being, good career advice, not very grounded in terms of socioeconomic positions though. There is a lot of privilege not being challenged. I would just recommend reading it if you do agree with working for a purpose, but being VERY aware of the lens through which the authors see the world, and how it´s different depending on socioeconomic status and countries in which you live to work towards certain causes, even if memorable.
May 27, 2022
A dream job is something you're good at, that helps others, with benefits such as nice colleagues and a short commute.
Ideally, you want your job to improve the world. You can improve the world through your career by working on problems that are big, neglected, tractable, and which you're able to help solve.
If you're not sure what to do yet, don't just trust your gut. Instead, build transferable career capital and experiment with different jobs. Over time, you'll learn what you like and can use your career capital as leverage later on. (If only I'd known this sooner).
When trying to find a job, network, do free work, and negotiate for small bonuses if you get a lead.
And if all else fails, just donate money to effective causes!
Ideally, you want your job to improve the world. You can improve the world through your career by working on problems that are big, neglected, tractable, and which you're able to help solve.
If you're not sure what to do yet, don't just trust your gut. Instead, build transferable career capital and experiment with different jobs. Over time, you'll learn what you like and can use your career capital as leverage later on. (If only I'd known this sooner).
When trying to find a job, network, do free work, and negotiate for small bonuses if you get a lead.
And if all else fails, just donate money to effective causes!
May 25, 2018
A pragmatic look at how you can improve as many lives as you can through your career. Expounds on the idea of effective altruism, where you try to make a lot of money and then proceed to donate anywhere from 10% to as much as you can. It has been calculated that $3000 in malaria nets can save a human life, while one additional person becoming a doctor in a developed country might only save an additional 4.
The book also has some ideas around how you should select a career and job, with straight-forward advice usually backed by studies or book recommendations.
The book also has some ideas around how you should select a career and job, with straight-forward advice usually backed by studies or book recommendations.
July 18, 2023
A book I wish I read 5 years ago, a book that everyone early in their career should read! We spend 80 000 hours of our life working, but spend comparatively very little time reflecting on what career we should pursue. This book gives evidence based ways to find a fulfilling career.
Rather than “following your passion”, a fulfilling job has: “Work you’re good at, Work that helps others, Engaging work that lets you enter a state of flow (freedom, variety, clear tasks, feedback), Supportive colleagues, No major negatives like long hours or unfair pay, and Work that fits your personal life.
Quotes:
If you could make your career just 1% higher impact, or 1% more enjoyable, it would be worth spending up to 1% of your career doing so. That’s 800 hours – five months of full-time work.
“We know we’re rich, but we don’t think of ourselves as the richest people in the world – we’re not the bankers, CEOs or celebrities. But actually, if you earn $53,000 per year and don’t have kids, then globally speaking, you are the 1%.”
“One study found that if one of your friends becomes more happy, you’re 15% more likely to be happy. If a friend of a friend becomes happy, you’re 10% more likely to be happy; and if a friend of a friend of a friend becomes happy, you’re still 6% more likely to be happy.”
“Medicine is a highly paid and highly satisfying career. However, working in clinical medicine has a modest direct impact, and relative to the cost and time required for medical training, it has mediocre ‘exit opportunities’ to other career paths, and provides little platform for advocacy. It is also highly competitive.
Our view is that the people likely to succeed at medical school admission could often have a greater impact outside medicine. Within medicine, we believe the highest impact opportunities lie in the fields of (in order) biomedical research, public health and health policy, and healthcare management.”
“PhD Philosophy, especially some areas within ethics and political philosophy, is plausibly a high-value area for research, and, if one is successful within philosophy, may also provide a good basis for impact via being a public intellectual. However, because of the current nature of the academic job market for philosophy, and because a philosophy PhD scores poorly in terms of career capital and keeping one’s options open, we currently believe that a philosophy PhD is unlikely to be the best choice for the majority of people who are considering that option. It’s important to note that almost all professional philosophers who have written publicly on this topic advise against aiming to become a philosopher as a career, unless “there is nothing else you can imagine doing”.
We would recommend pursuing philosophy as a career only if one has explored and rejected other career options, and only if you get into a top-twelve PhD program: Berkeley, Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Oxford, NYU, Pittsburgh, Princeton, Rutgers, Stanford, UCLA, and Yale.”
“Based on our research so far, here’s a list of problem areas, ranked on a combination of their scale, neglectedness, and solvability.
Risks from artificial intelligence
Promoting effective altruism
Global priorities research
Factory farming
Biosecurity
Nuclear security
Climate change (extreme risks)
Land use reform
Smoking in the developing world
Developing-world health”
Rather than “following your passion”, a fulfilling job has: “Work you’re good at, Work that helps others, Engaging work that lets you enter a state of flow (freedom, variety, clear tasks, feedback), Supportive colleagues, No major negatives like long hours or unfair pay, and Work that fits your personal life.
Quotes:
If you could make your career just 1% higher impact, or 1% more enjoyable, it would be worth spending up to 1% of your career doing so. That’s 800 hours – five months of full-time work.
“We know we’re rich, but we don’t think of ourselves as the richest people in the world – we’re not the bankers, CEOs or celebrities. But actually, if you earn $53,000 per year and don’t have kids, then globally speaking, you are the 1%.”
“One study found that if one of your friends becomes more happy, you’re 15% more likely to be happy. If a friend of a friend becomes happy, you’re 10% more likely to be happy; and if a friend of a friend of a friend becomes happy, you’re still 6% more likely to be happy.”
“Medicine is a highly paid and highly satisfying career. However, working in clinical medicine has a modest direct impact, and relative to the cost and time required for medical training, it has mediocre ‘exit opportunities’ to other career paths, and provides little platform for advocacy. It is also highly competitive.
Our view is that the people likely to succeed at medical school admission could often have a greater impact outside medicine. Within medicine, we believe the highest impact opportunities lie in the fields of (in order) biomedical research, public health and health policy, and healthcare management.”
“PhD Philosophy, especially some areas within ethics and political philosophy, is plausibly a high-value area for research, and, if one is successful within philosophy, may also provide a good basis for impact via being a public intellectual. However, because of the current nature of the academic job market for philosophy, and because a philosophy PhD scores poorly in terms of career capital and keeping one’s options open, we currently believe that a philosophy PhD is unlikely to be the best choice for the majority of people who are considering that option. It’s important to note that almost all professional philosophers who have written publicly on this topic advise against aiming to become a philosopher as a career, unless “there is nothing else you can imagine doing”.
We would recommend pursuing philosophy as a career only if one has explored and rejected other career options, and only if you get into a top-twelve PhD program: Berkeley, Columbia, Harvard, MIT, Oxford, NYU, Pittsburgh, Princeton, Rutgers, Stanford, UCLA, and Yale.”
“Based on our research so far, here’s a list of problem areas, ranked on a combination of their scale, neglectedness, and solvability.
Risks from artificial intelligence
Promoting effective altruism
Global priorities research
Factory farming
Biosecurity
Nuclear security
Climate change (extreme risks)
Land use reform
Smoking in the developing world
Developing-world health”
September 15, 2024
Recently I have been trying to determine a direction for my career. This book is a good guide for just that, it is full of interesting points to ponder over.
August 4, 2024
I really really REALLY enjoyed this. It gave me a lot of very new perspectives and introduced me to many new ideas to help me figure out what I want my career to look like. I would recommend reading the online version on their website though, because it is a lot more detailed and I learned a lot from the stuff it linked to.
August 14, 2019
Don't be mislead by the page count of 340 pages. This is really just a ~150 page book, with another 150+ pages of mostly skippable appendices. Compared to another "modern career advice" book I recently read, How to Win in a Winner-Take-All World: The Definitive Guide to Adapting and Succeeding in High-Performance Careers, I found this vastly superior. It relies on actual data & research, rather than anecdotes. It is brief & to the point. It doesn't contain lots of long-winded stories.
The biggest flaw is that this is really targeted at people still in university. While there are some things that people who have already embarked on a career can glean from this, the advice (and nearly all the related stories & anecdotes) is about people in university (or, at best, a post-graduate program).
If I knew a high-schooler or college student pondering their future career path, this would be an excellent book for them. It covers a lot of ground quickly from what makes a dream job to how a young person should think about the entire arc of their career. One of the strengths of the book is that it offers strong advice against rushing into non-profit work right out of university, about avoiding helping with popular problems (where the marginal impact of your efforts will be minimal; the world probably doesn't need another breast cancer researcher, for instance), and about playing to your strengths (they suggest that for some people it is better to "earn to give" rather than making direct contributions; a corporate lawyer who donates $50,000 a year to anti-malaria foundations in Africa is likely to actually do far more good over their life than someone who becomes a primary care physician in America).
When you are early in your career, you have little or no career capital which will limit how far you can advance in a non-profit and how much impact you can have. In many cases it makes more sense to work in the corporate sector for a few years to build up career capital first.
They acknowledge that finding a career is fraught. We can't rely on our gut or "finding a passion". But you can't sample careers as easily as you can sample a new kind of food. Their advice is all sensible. Explore before you graduate rather than after. Put "reversible" options first. Chose options that let you experiment.
They recommend making a career plan with A/B/Z options (A: top option, B: nearby alternatives, Z: temporary fallback) and review your plan every 6-12 months with a list of signs that would tell you whether you are on the wrong path or not.
The book isn't exactly in-depth or detailed. Each chapter is quite brief. You could easily read the entire book in a single sitting. But each chapter also contains references to books & blogs with more detail on many of the topics. (One reason the appendices are mostly skippable is because they are often just a summary of current effective altruism research and you're better off just reading an entirely different book on that.)
One big downside of the book is it feels very steeped in the techie culture & mindset. At one point they give a list of suggested jobs: tech startup founder, quantitative trading, startup early employee, software engineering, data science, and management consultant. Every one of those, other than management consultant, boils down to some variant of "learn to program". They do talk about non-tech careers but it usually comes across as second-best options.
The biggest flaw is that this is really targeted at people still in university. While there are some things that people who have already embarked on a career can glean from this, the advice (and nearly all the related stories & anecdotes) is about people in university (or, at best, a post-graduate program).
If I knew a high-schooler or college student pondering their future career path, this would be an excellent book for them. It covers a lot of ground quickly from what makes a dream job to how a young person should think about the entire arc of their career. One of the strengths of the book is that it offers strong advice against rushing into non-profit work right out of university, about avoiding helping with popular problems (where the marginal impact of your efforts will be minimal; the world probably doesn't need another breast cancer researcher, for instance), and about playing to your strengths (they suggest that for some people it is better to "earn to give" rather than making direct contributions; a corporate lawyer who donates $50,000 a year to anti-malaria foundations in Africa is likely to actually do far more good over their life than someone who becomes a primary care physician in America).
When you are early in your career, you have little or no career capital which will limit how far you can advance in a non-profit and how much impact you can have. In many cases it makes more sense to work in the corporate sector for a few years to build up career capital first.
Although it’s good to make a difference right away, you also need to invest in yourself to maximize your impact in the long-term
They acknowledge that finding a career is fraught. We can't rely on our gut or "finding a passion". But you can't sample careers as easily as you can sample a new kind of food. Their advice is all sensible. Explore before you graduate rather than after. Put "reversible" options first. Chose options that let you experiment.
They recommend making a career plan with A/B/Z options (A: top option, B: nearby alternatives, Z: temporary fallback) and review your plan every 6-12 months with a list of signs that would tell you whether you are on the wrong path or not.
The book isn't exactly in-depth or detailed. Each chapter is quite brief. You could easily read the entire book in a single sitting. But each chapter also contains references to books & blogs with more detail on many of the topics. (One reason the appendices are mostly skippable is because they are often just a summary of current effective altruism research and you're better off just reading an entirely different book on that.)
One big downside of the book is it feels very steeped in the techie culture & mindset. At one point they give a list of suggested jobs: tech startup founder, quantitative trading, startup early employee, software engineering, data science, and management consultant. Every one of those, other than management consultant, boils down to some variant of "learn to program". They do talk about non-tech careers but it usually comes across as second-best options.
July 30, 2022
Brilliant book with some fantastic practical recommendations.
December 19, 2019
I should not have read this book in the first place. It’s not made for people in the developing countries who are not “happen to be rich by virtue of where we were born” or “also happen to have political influence for the same reason” (those are excerpts from the book). Yes, I am very much annoyed by those statements.
I get that the main idea of this book is to guide people in choosing careers that not only suit them, but also create impact at large scale. However, one of the main points of this book is to make use of the current unequal economic condition instead of addressing it. This is the whole idea of earning to give. I personally think it’s ironic that inequality is not considered as a pressing world problem as it is the root cause of various issues in societies such as shorter life expectancy and high violence rate.
On a positive note, 80,000 Hours does contain many insightful tips on how to choose your career path strategically. If you are a fresh graduate, you might find this book quite useful and practical.
I get that the main idea of this book is to guide people in choosing careers that not only suit them, but also create impact at large scale. However, one of the main points of this book is to make use of the current unequal economic condition instead of addressing it. This is the whole idea of earning to give. I personally think it’s ironic that inequality is not considered as a pressing world problem as it is the root cause of various issues in societies such as shorter life expectancy and high violence rate.
On a positive note, 80,000 Hours does contain many insightful tips on how to choose your career path strategically. If you are a fresh graduate, you might find this book quite useful and practical.
February 7, 2017
This is more like an online guide than a book to be honest. I found their proposed idea of "earning to give" reasonable but somehow emotionally unsatisfying as someone who wants to do good. This book is also quite similar to the other book William MacAskill's Doing Good Better so if you've read that one, it's unnecessary to read this one.
December 9, 2022
I received this book as a gift from the publisher. It was okay and reasonably easy to understand, but it was simplistic to the point it read like a Google how-to article. The data was well presented, but I found very little of it helpful. For someone who has no idea how to enter the workforce, it may be worth reading. For most, I think it will be largely unhelpful.
Three stars.
Three stars.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 23, 2016
Career advice meets effective altruism meets rationality. If you've already had a lot of all three, you may not learn a ton new here, but I feel like nearly every smart high school and college student would benefit from this. Not especially well written, but valuable content. Breezy and easy.
February 12, 2017
Poses some interesting career advice. Most of it is basic and intuitive and the recommended careers are very narrowly scoped. I think it is a useful resource to skim through and keep as a reference point.
August 27, 2022
First half of the book is quite insightful. The second half is mediocre, vague and sounds just the same as other career books.
January 27, 2024
Started off fairly interesting and eye opening in terms of how we view global priorities and how we can be most effective in our respective careers. Lots of great exercises and tangible advice in terms of personal growth and development. The appendices were where this book fell apart a bit. I felt like the author has an over emphasis on certain topics and not others with little explanation for why those other topics were never even mentioned. It would be great to understand the process and selection process for qualifying something as a top priority besides "neglected" and "relatively poorly funded". The depth as well of breadth of topics was limited. For example, the author mentioned AI and factory farming extensively but never really truly deep dived into why these were important or the potential downside scenarios we would face if they went unaddressed. In the same light, there was a relatively short list of topics covered. While some were eye-opening, most were fairly standard. I feel as if the author missed key topics and did not have a well rounded view on certain topics. One of the biggest examples was the section on why going into finance was seen as a mainly negative career option, although the author recommended things like management consulting and organizations like the IMF which arguably have created more harm in their fields than the average finance professional. There was also a big miss on highlighting impact investing as a new field as they author only commented on grantmaking. In a separate light, there was this huge focus on existential threats like AI, but the diminishing of threats that have more inequitable implications (climate change). Overtones of paternalism! This opinion is based purely on the book and not the external resources online.
June 1, 2023
This guide is refreshing in that it puts more emphasis than traditional career guides on 1) satisfaction by doing good and 2) the fact that you will grow and change and you probably DON’T already know what you will find satisfying.
I like their emphasis on picking neglected areas because you are more likely to have meaningful impact.
It is aimed at young urban singles. Todd is vaguely aware that spouses and kids exist for some people, but he is not tuned into the unique pressures of not letting your family starve in a difficult economy. 🤪
It is heavily influenced by the group that assembled it, the Center for Effective Altruism. They are all about doing the most good for the most people in the places where it accomplishes the most, so they strongly promote large scale, global, and broad actions. They prefer BIG careers to small ones like teaching, because teaching only affects 30 or so kids a year. Which is a perspective, except some of us value being HERE, taking care of this place and these kids and the issues that are, well, local. Actually, my neighbors DO need help, even if we do live in a rich country. I have more rant but that’s enough for now.
Setting aside their peculiar take on useful jobs, I am also not particularly impressed by their list of suggested top world problems you could go solve. But Todd acknowledges that you should choose the causes important to you. Thank you, I will.
I would also like a leeeeetle more emphasis from them on discerning which charities have fewer unintended consequences, and don’t accidentally devour the entire local ecology by giving people too many goats, as has been known to happen. Money is power, and he doesn’t realize that sometimes power goes boom.
I like their emphasis on picking neglected areas because you are more likely to have meaningful impact.
It is aimed at young urban singles. Todd is vaguely aware that spouses and kids exist for some people, but he is not tuned into the unique pressures of not letting your family starve in a difficult economy. 🤪
It is heavily influenced by the group that assembled it, the Center for Effective Altruism. They are all about doing the most good for the most people in the places where it accomplishes the most, so they strongly promote large scale, global, and broad actions. They prefer BIG careers to small ones like teaching, because teaching only affects 30 or so kids a year. Which is a perspective, except some of us value being HERE, taking care of this place and these kids and the issues that are, well, local. Actually, my neighbors DO need help, even if we do live in a rich country. I have more rant but that’s enough for now.
Setting aside their peculiar take on useful jobs, I am also not particularly impressed by their list of suggested top world problems you could go solve. But Todd acknowledges that you should choose the causes important to you. Thank you, I will.
I would also like a leeeeetle more emphasis from them on discerning which charities have fewer unintended consequences, and don’t accidentally devour the entire local ecology by giving people too many goats, as has been known to happen. Money is power, and he doesn’t realize that sometimes power goes boom.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 225 reviews