Varsity has investigated the level of money and influence that Effective Altruism (EA) has in Cambridge after allegations that the movement has at times acted like a “cult”.
Over the last five years, Cambridge has received a large amount of funding from various EA groups, including more than $400,000 from EA Funds. Varsity has also uncovered concerning practices at past residential Leaf courses that were affiliated with EA and attended by some Cambridge students
Since 2022, EA has had a large presence in Cambridge after spending $200,000 to “build and grow the EA ecosystem in Cambridge.” Antonio Azvedo, the community manager at EA Cambridge, explained that “The value proposition of a university group is that during university people are thinking about their careers […] and how they’re going to use their talents to impact the world in one way or another.”
He continued: “Cambridge in particular, has a lot of talented students and a lot of people who are actually motivated by these world problems.”
EA is a broad, global movement that “is focused on finding ways of doing good that actually work,” according to their website. It has a wide variety of affiliated groups and individuals that research the most effective ways of maximising good while also acting as a practical community that discusses the best ways to apply their research. Much of their work revolves around optimising resources to prevent tropical diseases, factory farming, and long-term existential risks. However, Varsity’s investigation has also found that a considerable amount of money is spent on community building and outreach, including at universities.
“The movement is famous for courting billionaires to commit to donating large portions of their wealth to the movement”
The movement is famous for courting billionaires to commit to donating large portions of their wealth to the movement, including Jaan Tallinn (co-founder of Skype); Dustin Moskovitz (co-founder of Facebook), and Sam Bankman-Fried (founder of the cryptocurrency trading firm, FTX).
EA was subject to a large amount of press attention at the end of 2022 after Bankman-Fried – then a leading figurehead of the movement – was charged with defrauding FTX customers and investors. EA subsequently saw a drop in donations, but in 2024 EA Funds still paid out over $10 million worldwide to various charities and EA-affiliated groups.
The $200,000 grant to EA Cambridge was allocated for building an ecosystem in Cambridge, including staff and student recruitment efforts, as well as hiring out the Meridian Office on Sidney Street: a modern, spacious and well-equipped space. Part of EA’s recent recruitment drive has included freshers’ fair stalls, leaving leaflets in college pigeon holes, and email newsletters.
Varsity also found that some Cambridge students were drawn to the movement before university and were enticed by the large levels of spending on Leaf summer courses, which are financed by EA Funds. The program is aimed mostly at students aged 16-18 who are considered to have promising future careers.
“An all-expenses paid week at Lady Margaret Hall in Oxford, including a £40 budget per student for a restaurant meal each evening”
The course began in 2021 and used to offer an all-expenses paid week at Lady Margaret Hall in Oxford, including a £40 budget per student for a restaurant meal each evening. The course consisted of classes and discussions where students were taught about the ideas of effective altruism.
The Leaf program was given $560,000 in 2022 by EA Funds to support the course for multiple years, although much of this funding did not go towards residential programmes. Since 2024, all Leaf courses have been moved online.
When the course was residential, a large proportion of its students were from elite private schools or learned about the opportunities through word of mouth with well-connected people. Many students from these cohorts are now at Oxford and Cambridge where they hold some of the most influential positions in student politics and journalism.
Varsity has spoken to Cambridge students who were on the 2022 residential course, most of whom enjoyed their time there. One student said: “I enjoyed it overall, especially the discussions we had inside and outside of the sessions about what the world’s most pressing issues were, and what to do about them. Everyone was incredibly knowledgeable, and I appreciated the frank discussions about the difficulty of pursuing an ‘impactful’ career.”
However, students on the course also raised concerns about the way it was run. One student said the money they were offering “all seem[ed] a bit too good to be true.”
Not only were students offered the all-expenses paid course, but there were further offers to apply for grants to go to conferences, as well as money for completing essays.
The large sums of money that were spent on teenagers left some who were part of the residential courses concerned that EA was acting like a cult. One told Varsity: “Leaf is only really the tip of the iceberg; it was the opportunities that came after it that made me feel like EA is a cult. Realising how much of EA’s budget goes into ‘community building’ (i.e., expanding EA) was shocking, given the emphasis on effective charitable giving.”
Another from the 2022 Leaf cohort who subsequently went to an EA conference was told sarcastically that “You’re joining a cult” by a more senior member of the conference. The student said it quickly became clear that “it’s a criticism in EA that everyone is aware of and makes jokes about.”
There were also concerns about the content of the course, including the “glorification” of Sam Bankman-Fried during the 2022 camp, who at the time was one of EA’s biggest donors. Whole sessions were dedicated to learning more about the then-billionaire, who was charged a few months later for fraud. Bankman-Fried was subsequently sentenced in March 2024 to 25 years in prison for taking more than $8 billion from his customers and orchestrating one of the largest financial frauds in history.
“He was portrayed ‘like a God’”
Even though there were no public allegations against Bankman-Fried at the time of the 2022 summer camp, many students who were part of that cohort still felt uncomfortable about how he was portrayed, with one student telling Varsity he was portrayed “like a God”.
Another said: “A lot of people in [the Bankman-Fried] talk questioned whether what he is doing is really good because crypto is basically just gambling and he’s making money off other people’s livelihoods.”
Other concerning activities included a class where students were asked to “figure out” how many chickens equate to one human life, and based on that determine how much should be given to animal charities. “It’s not a nice way of thinking about things,” one student commented.
Varsity received mixed accounts about the level of ideological disagreement that was permitted on the course. One student told Varsity: “They were always very open to discussing counter-examples,” adding “You can have your own principled ideas, your own thoughts and your own arguments.”
However, another said they were unable to question whether EA’s billionaire donors had too much unaccountable power.
Varsity also found that students on the 2022 Leaf course were messaged via LinkedIn and email even after they had left the movement. One student found that they were automatically put on the EA Cambridge mailing list upon arriving at the University despite not interacting with the group for over a year.
The broad concerns raised by Varsity’s investigation are not new, and have been discussed by academics writing against EA since the movement gained traction. One of the movement’s most prominent critics is Professor Alice Crary, a former visiting fellow at Oxford’s All Souls College, who described EA to Varsity as: “A false image of what ethics is, but also one that jibes with our culture in fundamental ways and has materially hugely damaging effects.”
Last year, Crary spoke at the Cambridge Union in opposition of the motion that “This House Believes You Can Put A Number On Human Life”, where she debated against some of Cambridge’s effective altruists.
Crary first began writing against EA as a letter to her Oxford students who she saw were being convinced by their ideas. What particularly concerned her was that “It’s among the nicest, most committed, most sincere students I know who get pulled [into the movement].”
She also told Varsity that people have confided in her that they have “lost their children to a cult” in reference to EA, and she is aware of other academics who have had similar experiences.
However, Crary also emphasised that “Some isolated things that people are doing as effective altruists and with their money are good,” in reference to the various charities and projects they support.
Another prominent critic is Émile Torres, who has spent time at Cambridge’s Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) which has close ties to EA and was co-founded by Jaan Tallinn who is one of EA’s biggest donors. Torres, who used to be part of the EA community, said that they were very concerned about the level of self-censorship within the movement and that “There [were] so many people who thought EA was deeply problematic, philosophically or sociologically, but didn’t want to say anything because there’s so much money.” Torres told Varsity that this included academics they met at Cambridge.
Academics speaking out against EA are also the targets of hate mail. One academic, who wished to remain anonymous, said they were told by an EA supporter that by critiquing effective altruism, “[Their] work causes the death of hundreds of children.”
Not everyone Varsity spoke to agreed with these negative characterisations of EA, with one student who is part of EA Cambridge describing it as “Open, scientific [and] non-confrontational.” He disagreed with portrayals of EA as a cult “because it is so open” and “very approachable.”
He concluded that: “I don’t know how they could do any better than they are to avoid these problems without giving up on the projects entirely, which isn’t worth it.”
“People just get the wrong impression [of EA] in general”
Another Cambridge student who is part of various EA groups admitted that the movement “might be more intense with their messaging” than others, but she insisted that “People just get the wrong impression [of EA] in general.”
Varsity’s investigation also found that many recent positive steps have been made across EA-affiliated groups since Bankman-Fried was charged. For example, the Leaf courses have undergone significant changes since late 2023 to make them more cost-effective and accessible by transitioning to be based online rather than in Oxford. Content surrounding Bankman-Fried is now far more critical and used as a cautionary tale and useful case study for the problems of over-maximisation, according to one insider.
Furthermore, Azvedo, the community manager at EA Cambridge, told Varsity that practices in Cambridge have recently shifted to focus on discussion-based workshops rather than more intense programs where mentors are hired.
“How I want [EA Cambridge] to be is open, absolutely,” Azvedo told Varsity, “To tackle problems with this scope you really have to be open-minded and receptive to feedback.”
As part of the investigation, Varsity also looked at the grants EA gives to groups in Cambridge that are not focused on community building, many of which are doing important and positive work. This includes a $130,000 grant given by EA Funds to Cambridge’s alternative protein field-building efforts. Cambridge’s alt-protein project aims to find and promote new sources of protein that are less costly than traditional, meat-based options.
“EA ‘have been really supportive in helping us fund some of our social events’”
Mariel Alem Fonseca, President of the Cambridge University Alt Protein Project, told Varsity that EA groups “have been really supportive in helping us fund some of our social events” and “will be supporting us this year as well in the alternative protein course.”
Alem Fonseca told Varsity about the importance of her project in improving food security, “reducing the environmental impact of our food supply chains” and “Reduc[ing] so many millions of animals dying […] by bringing these new alternatives where animals are not involved at all in the equation.”
When asked for comment, a spokesperson for EA Cambridge told Varsity: “Like any organisation focused on doing good, we’re always looking at how we can be more cost-effective. The resources we’ve invested, including our space, help us run impactful programmes. We regularly look at our spending and try to make smart choices about where our money goes.”
A spokesperson for Leaf told Varsity: “Traditional education systems often fail to provide structured pathways, mentorship, and community for students to explore how they can make a meaningful positive impact on the biggest problems facing our world. The incentives and encouragement for academically exceptional and altruistic teens are all about demonstrating their intelligence and getting into college and prestigious, high-paying careers rather than making use of their skills to help others.”
A spokesperson for EA Funds said: “Many talented young people would, if given the option, choose to use their careers to help others, but too often they instead find themselves unintentionally pulled into the well-trod pipeline from top universities to financially lucrative professions. I’ve heard from many people that a social and intellectual community of supportive peers allowed them to pursue high-impact altruistic careers, leading to more fulfilling lives and a better world for those they help through their work.
Supporting the organisations that help build peer networks to empower students to learn about their high-impact options can be tremendously cost-effective.”
A spokesperson for CSER said: “CSER’s mission is to study and mitigate risks that could be globally catastrophic, which can sometimes overlap with the interests of those in the Effective Altruism movement. Like many teams at the University, our researchers come from diverse backgrounds and focus on a wide range of risks from AI to biosecurity and volcanic risks. There are various ways to approach these topics, and exploring these different approaches is also part of our research.”
In 2022, three CSER researchers published a paper reflecting on the evolution of the field of existential risk. It contains reflections about the importance of a diversity of views and philosophies in the field. This paper, among others, demonstrates that the researchers at CSER are publicly engaged in discussions about different approaches to how and why we research catastrophic risk.”
All students were kept anonymous as part of this investigation.
Want to share your thoughts on this article? Send us a letter to letters@varsity.co.uk or by using this form.
