{"id":34846,"date":"2015-11-19T15:25:21","date_gmt":"2015-11-19T15:25:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/80000hours.org\/?p=34846"},"modified":"2018-09-18T19:04:58","modified_gmt":"2018-09-18T19:04:58","slug":"safe-credentials-are-not-always-the-best-way-to-career-capital","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/80000hours.org\/2015\/11\/safe-credentials-are-not-always-the-best-way-to-career-capital\/","title":{"rendered":"Are our most engaged readers overweighting career capital?"},"content":{"rendered":"

We\u2019ve spoken a lot about the importance of building career capital<\/a>. But now, it seems like some of our most engaged readers are putting more weight than we think they should career capital, and not enough on short-run impact.<\/p>\n

A situation many people face is something like the following:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The interesting project<\/strong>: Do something where there\u2019s a small chance you really excel, achieve something exceptional and have a big impact.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
  2. \n

    The safe project<\/strong>: Do something that offers a clear path to good options in the future.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The first option is usually something like doing a for-good startup, capitalising on a side project, or taking an unusual job with a mentor. The second is usually something like doing consulting, working at a prestigious large firm or doing graduate study.<\/p>\n

    The debate usually boils down to the following: the first path has a higher impact, but the second offers better career capital. Then people reason that since career capital is more important than impact early in their career, they should go with the second option.<\/p>\n

    That\u2019s often going to be the right answer, but here\u2019s a couple of reasons it might be a mistake.<\/p>\n

    You might be biased<\/h2>\n

    There\u2019s several biases that push in favour of the safe project.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Ambiguity aversion. Usually it\u2019s relatively clear what the safe project involves and what concrete next steps it\u2019ll lead to (e.g. do consulting, then you can either continue with that, or do an MBA, or go into industry etc.). Take the interesting option, however, and no-one knows what you\u2019ll be doing in five year\u2019s time. This makes it much more uncomfortable to take the first path, whether or not your future options will actually be worse.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
    2. \n

      Risk aversion. The interesting project is riskier, and generally people don\u2019t like risk. However, if you care about making a difference, then you should probably try to take more risk than your instincts will encourage you to. And that argues in favour of the first path.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    3. \n

      Social norms. The interesting project will be more unusual than the second, which will again make it more uncomfortable, whether or not it\u2019s actually worse.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      There\u2019s probably biases pointing you in favour of the first option too, such as overconfidence, but my guess is that overall, most people are more likely to be biased in favour of the safe project.<\/p>\n

      Impact varies more than career capital<\/h2>\n

      Although career capital is more important than role impact early career, it\u2019s rare, in my experience, for one serious option to seem like it has has more than twice the career capital of another, especially because there are many forms of career capital.<\/p>\n

      However, often the first option seems much higher impact than the second, perhaps ten times higher or more.<\/p>\n

      In a situation which looks like the following:<\/p>\n