TL;DR. Quantity over quality; table consistently; prioritize a friendly tone based on shared values; pitch the pledge as an accountability mechanism; don't spend too much time on the specifics of effectiveness; maintain a sense of agency and informed decision making; your mileage may vary but give it a try.

Since January 2025, the Middlebury EA contingent has secured 300 Giving What We Can (GWWC) 1% Trial Pledges from students interested in giving to highly effective charities. I estimate that we have tabled no more than 30 hours cumulatively. This is how we did it, and more importantly, why it's not that hard.

Our Theory of Change

1. Quantity over quality. It is much easier to get 300 1% pledges than 30 10% pledges. We would also rather make the pledge feel as accessible as possible—and risk some pledgers slipping through the cracks—rather than overstate the commitment and get fewer sign-ups. To understand this post, you must understand that we are under no illusions that all 300 students will follow through, or how many of those would donate in the absence of a pledge. However, if even 10% of them donate to better charities—and I believe that the percentage is far higher—our [...]

---

Outline:

(00:56) Our Theory of Change

(02:45) Breakdown of the Pitch

(08:23) Other Notes

(12:11) A Critical Note

---

First published:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.