pull down to refresh
you have to some how make it stand out
- Be distinct
- If possible, be good
that, I think I've managed.
Think about what your path to getting the job is.
Here's what I'm guessing it would be: they have a bunch of good, yet indistinguishable, candidates and while they're mulling over the choice at least a couple of them keep wondering what it would be like to add that odd econ guy to the mix instead. You become a Path B to be considered against the whole group of normal options.
exactly. You'll have 500 highly educated, credentialed (female!) environmentalists who want to "save the world." They all look the same, have the same degrees in sustainability and environmental engineering and whatever, worked and interned at the same places...
the other option: get someone who will constantly check your biases, won't automatically share your ideological/belief systems, and won't put up with your motivated reasoning. It'll make your truth-seeking, evidence-first, data-only resource better -- but it'll be a mess to work with (what, he won't sign his emails with he/him??), and hard af to justify to anybody else -.-
Say that, as directly as you can but, you know, nicely.
I copy-pasted that into Chat... was not happy.... I'll show you where you're wrong, assumes problems with your employer, sends the wrong message...
I honestly hate these ridiculous word plays.
Something like the following might be worth trying:
You likely have hundreds of highly educated, credentialed applicants who want to "save the world." They all look the same, have the same degrees, worked and interned at the same places.
Here's another option: hire someone who will constantly check your biases, won't automatically share your preconceptions, and push back on your motivated reasoning (even when I agree with you). It'll make your truth-seeking, evidence-first, data-only resource better.
The trick here is that most likely these folks think they value ideological diversity but will actually dismiss almost any specific view that differs from their own.
The trick here is that most likely these folks think they value ideological diversity but will actually dismiss almost any specific view that differs from their own.
yes, precisely. But if I want them to hire me for that reason, I kind of need to convince them about yet another thing: that they're deluding themselves in a false sense of diversity. That's not gonna go great, is it. Nobody loves that feeling
The tone you use on SN is excellent. It's breezy, easy to read, snarky, and fun. I never have to wade through your pieces; I slide through them like I'm an ice-skater. It's an excellent feeling.
hot damn, is this high praise. My gosh, imma blushing
how's this opening?
In the 3,000-odd days since I published my first article for a popular magazine, I’ve authored 438 articles on economics, politics, statistics, book reviews, environmentalism, monetary regimes, or bitcoin. Some were read by the non-dead internet’s, let’s say, 1.5 readers; some were read by hundreds of thousands and drowned my Twitter mentions for weeks; some were academic articles for scholarly journals, others long-reads with hundreds of hours of work behind them. But the ones I’m most proud of were the ones where I dug out some numbers from an archive or database and presented novel data in support of some argument.
Writers with years of practice, or these days novices with a decent LLM, can produce mediocre, bland, seemingly authentic prose. But uncovering and making sense of raw data, trudging through spreadsheets in search of relevant statistical information to support or triangulate an issue, that’s unbeatable.
The second part is great. The first part is boring.
You are a pretty great writer, so I don't think I can improve it much on that count.
But if I had a suggestion, it would be to remember that you have to some how make it stand out against all the other pretty good writers. This means my default cover letter is pretty often weird (I also don't think I've ever gotten a job because of a cover letter I've writtern, so there's that...)
I think If I was writing this letter, I'd try to pack it with data, it still needs to be readable, because afterall, they aren't hiring a data analyst, they're hiring a writer. So probably the data needs to be about you: overwhelm them with the data on your publications and online writing. Don't hit them with the normal, "I'm applying..." opening. Smack 'em upside the head with data right from the get go.
The tone you use on SN is excellent. It's breezy, easy to read, snarky, and fun. I never have to wade through your pieces; I slide through them like I'm an ice-skater. It's an excellent feeling. I often will much rather read your reviews of articles than the articles themselves. This is a super power. If you have a chance to showcase that tone: go for it.