Do not waste ED on a SLAC. Very few unhooked (non-athlete, non-FGLI, non-legacy/donor) get in.

[Anonymous]

why do you guys think so many SLACs have this same, sports-heavy model. I'm asking - I am genuinely curious.

like for me, it seems crazy that small colleges are prioritizing the 10th best football player that might be interested in them. Or really any member of the sailing or squash team at all. Why is this an institutional priority.

I went to a big basketball school and I can see from a marketing POV, if your team is on ESPN on a Saturday afternoon, okay. It never made sense to me that these players weren't paid (or even given a scholarship I guess at some schools), but with NIL, I think the standouts are getting their pay.

But for every other sport or for Swarthmore football (if there even is such a thing) - who the f cares?

I would think some school - like maybe Swat or Williams, some place with an intellectual vibe -- would just get rid of all of it. Keep men and women soccer if you want. Or whatever is the heritage sport. But dump 90% of it.

I think there are lots of kids who would be drawn to that. All the NARPs who have maybe good reason to be wary of these schools. Plus these most of these sports are a giant expense for most of these schools. Why wouldn't one school break free?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From The Tufts Daily:

One study found that at 19 elite colleges, recruited athletes have a 30% higher chance at admittance than their non-athlete peers. At NESCAC schools, the percentage is even higher, with a 50% increased likelihood of receiving an acceptance letter. The effect of this can be all too tangible in many smaller colleges, such as Williams and Amherst, where about one-third of each incoming class is student athletes. At Tufts, this number is about 13%, or one in eight.

On average, student athletes score 100 points lower on the SAT than non-recruited students admitted to the same institution. This underperformance continues into college: At Ivy League institutions 81% of student athletes graduated at the bottom one-third of their class. Meanwhile, a study conducted on athlete admission to Harvard concluded that “being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants.” It’s understandable that many athletes’ grades would suffer when considering the immense workload that a commitment to athletics requires, but this doesn’t change the fact that they are receiving academic priority for athletic qualifications. This means that numerous academically qualified students are being denied admission to make space for others who largely haven’t made education their first priority.

Notice that there was no mention that any of them were not academically qualified, because they were and they met an institutional priority.

People constantly want these schools to adjust their priorities to meet their preferences. Seems a bit like affirmative action to me.

But what does that mean? A PP posted a stat that only 11% of them would have been admitted without athletic preference. That suggests many are underqualified, at best.

You do understand that 11% or so is the typical admissions rate for Tufts. It suggests that without athletics they would be admitted like any typical applicant, not that they are underqualified at all.

It means nearly 90% of athletes currently attending elite schools would not have been admitted. Not the same thing!

It means that their results would look the same as the general pool. Pretty basic math mom.

An issue with grasping distinct contexts, it seems. It means 90% of admitted athletes shouldn't have been admitted because they don't meet the normally-very-high academic bar.

It means exactly what it says which is that 89% of the athletes wouldn't have passed holistic review just like the general pool.

Which means they shouldn't have been admitted but they were! Ffs.

It means no such thing, the vast majority of applicant to Tufts are rejected for no other reason than a lack of space. They are perfectly qualified for admission and success from an academic POV. Same for this group. It says that if you took two pools Athletes and non-athletes and admitted from them blindly you would get the same admittance rate! Recruited athlete is the ultimate hook, we all get that but the idea that they were not academically qualified is not supported by that statement. FFS this isn't hard!

NP. It literally says they would not have been admitted. It does not say they met the bar and their athletic ability pushed them over it.

Yes. They might have to pass a pre-read but they still would not have been admitted otherwise, according to the study. Are the pre-read metrics publicly available? No, for good reason.

But part of the holistic review is being a recruited athlete. It doesn't mean they aren't qualified academically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From The Tufts Daily:

One study found that at 19 elite colleges, recruited athletes have a 30% higher chance at admittance than their non-athlete peers. At NESCAC schools, the percentage is even higher, with a 50% increased likelihood of receiving an acceptance letter. The effect of this can be all too tangible in many smaller colleges, such as Williams and Amherst, where about one-third of each incoming class is student athletes. At Tufts, this number is about 13%, or one in eight.

On average, student athletes score 100 points lower on the SAT than non-recruited students admitted to the same institution. This underperformance continues into college: At Ivy League institutions 81% of student athletes graduated at the bottom one-third of their class. Meanwhile, a study conducted on athlete admission to Harvard concluded that “being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants.” It’s understandable that many athletes’ grades would suffer when considering the immense workload that a commitment to athletics requires, but this doesn’t change the fact that they are receiving academic priority for athletic qualifications. This means that numerous academically qualified students are being denied admission to make space for others who largely haven’t made education their first priority.

Notice that there was no mention that any of them were not academically qualified, because they were and they met an institutional priority.

People constantly want these schools to adjust their priorities to meet their preferences. Seems a bit like affirmative action to me.

But what does that mean? A PP posted a stat that only 11% of them would have been admitted without athletic preference. That suggests many are underqualified, at best.

You do understand that 11% or so is the typical admissions rate for Tufts. It suggests that without athletics they would be admitted like any typical applicant, not that they are underqualified at all.

It means nearly 90% of athletes currently attending elite schools would not have been admitted. Not the same thing!

It means that their results would look the same as the general pool. Pretty basic math mom.

An issue with grasping distinct contexts, it seems. It means 90% of admitted athletes shouldn't have been admitted because they don't meet the normally-very-high academic bar.

It means exactly what it says which is that 89% of the athletes wouldn't have passed holistic review just like the general pool.

Which means they shouldn't have been admitted but they were! Ffs.

It means no such thing, the vast majority of applicant to Tufts are rejected for no other reason than a lack of space. They are perfectly qualified for admission and success from an academic POV. Same for this group. It says that if you took two pools Athletes and non-athletes and admitted from them blindly you would get the same admittance rate! Recruited athlete is the ultimate hook, we all get that but the idea that they were not academically qualified is not supported by that statement. FFS this isn't hard!

NP. It literally says they would not have been admitted. It does not say they met the bar and their athletic ability pushed them over it.

Yes. They might have to pass a pre-read but they still would not have been admitted otherwise, according to the study. Are the pre-read metrics publicly available? No, for good reason.

But part of the holistic review is being a recruited athlete. It doesn't mean they aren't qualified academically.

as has been pointed out, most of these colleges say 90% of the applicants are qualified. it's the extras that push them over. some of you think lacrosse is as impressive as a regeneron winner - most of the world disagrees with you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:why do you guys think so many SLACs have this same, sports-heavy model. I'm asking - I am genuinely curious.

like for me, it seems crazy that small colleges are prioritizing the 10th best football player that might be interested in them. Or really any member of the sailing or squash team at all. Why is this an institutional priority.

I went to a big basketball school and I can see from a marketing POV, if your team is on ESPN on a Saturday afternoon, okay. It never made sense to me that these players weren't paid (or even given a scholarship I guess at some schools), but with NIL, I think the standouts are getting their pay.

But for every other sport or for Swarthmore football (if there even is such a thing) - who the f cares?

I would think some school - like maybe Swat or Williams, some place with an intellectual vibe -- would just get rid of all of it. Keep men and women soccer if you want. Or whatever is the heritage sport. But dump 90% of it.

I think there are lots of kids who would be drawn to that. All the NARPs who have maybe good reason to be wary of these schools. Plus these most of these sports are a giant expense for most of these schools. Why wouldn't one school break free?

Teams breed loyalty and comraderie. Feelings of loyalty -> more likely to be an active alum, come back to campus to hire students, give donations.

There is diminishing returns to scores/stats. SLACs are also aware the market for PhDs is pretty terrible. I'm sure schools have data that implies athletes are probably more likely to become CEOs and small business owners, vs researchers and PhDs. Colleges need a mix of both to have a functioning ecosystem. They are concerned with their endowment over the next 100 years, not just the next 20. Also, they are evaluated by US News on employment outcomes and salaries, not just admission statistics.

[Anonymous]

I think that's true at some schools. But most of these small schools have a dozen people show up to games/meets/matches. if that.

Athletics can also be a divisive element on campus. We've discussed this so many times here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:why do you guys think so many SLACs have this same, sports-heavy model. I'm asking - I am genuinely curious.

like for me, it seems crazy that small colleges are prioritizing the 10th best football player that might be interested in them. Or really any member of the sailing or squash team at all. Why is this an institutional priority.

I went to a big basketball school and I can see from a marketing POV, if your team is on ESPN on a Saturday afternoon, okay. It never made sense to me that these players weren't paid (or even given a scholarship I guess at some schools), but with NIL, I think the standouts are getting their pay.

But for every other sport or for Swarthmore football (if there even is such a thing) - who the f cares?

I would think some school - like maybe Swat or Williams, some place with an intellectual vibe -- would just get rid of all of it. Keep men and women soccer if you want. Or whatever is the heritage sport. But dump 90% of it.

I think there are lots of kids who would be drawn to that. All the NARPs who have maybe good reason to be wary of these schools. Plus these most of these sports are a giant expense for most of these schools. Why wouldn't one school break free?

SLACs are VERY dependent on sports for recruiting male students. Many of the male athletes at these schools would likely prefer larger/ less heady universities, but they identify as competitive athletes and SLAC sports allow them to stick with that identity for four more years. They also appreciate the comradery of the team experience.

SLACs find that athletes and frat members are much less likely to transfer out then non-affiliated students. Ironically, this fact makes SLACs without frats (WASP) MORE sports-dependent that other LACs.

[Anonymous]

A kid from a feeder school who can run cross country and has a 1520 SAT may be perceived as bringing the same value as a NARP with a 1570 and some STEM ECs.

It’s not like these athletes went to high schools that aren’t feeding to selective colleges. Further, at the D3 level these kids generally have SATs in the school’s range.

Our public HS every year sends athletes to NESCACs as well as MIT, JHU etc. They generally have perfect GPAs, the highest rigor (11-13 APs) 1500+, etc. These kids get priority over the NARPs with the same or marginally better stats and I can see how they could breed resentment.

One of my DS’s friends who fits that description just committed to Davidson (BC Calc as a Sophomore, etc). If you are guaranteed a spot vs rolling the dice for a Duke or even a Davidson, why not take the guarantee, especially if it allows you to continue to play your sport.

People think these athletes are all Neanderthals from bottom tier high schools getting a free pass. Go look at a roster of a NESCAC team and you’ll see many, many feeder schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From The Tufts Daily:

One study found that at 19 elite colleges, recruited athletes have a 30% higher chance at admittance than their non-athlete peers. At NESCAC schools, the percentage is even higher, with a 50% increased likelihood of receiving an acceptance letter. The effect of this can be all too tangible in many smaller colleges, such as Williams and Amherst, where about one-third of each incoming class is student athletes. At Tufts, this number is about 13%, or one in eight.

On average, student athletes score 100 points lower on the SAT than non-recruited students admitted to the same institution. This underperformance continues into college: At Ivy League institutions 81% of student athletes graduated at the bottom one-third of their class. Meanwhile, a study conducted on athlete admission to Harvard concluded that “being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants.” It’s understandable that many athletes’ grades would suffer when considering the immense workload that a commitment to athletics requires, but this doesn’t change the fact that they are receiving academic priority for athletic qualifications. This means that numerous academically qualified students are being denied admission to make space for others who largely haven’t made education their first priority.

Notice that there was no mention that any of them were not academically qualified, because they were and they met an institutional priority.

People constantly want these schools to adjust their priorities to meet their preferences. Seems a bit like affirmative action to me.

But what does that mean? A PP posted a stat that only 11% of them would have been admitted without athletic preference. That suggests many are underqualified, at best.

You do understand that 11% or so is the typical admissions rate for Tufts. It suggests that without athletics they would be admitted like any typical applicant, not that they are underqualified at all.

It means nearly 90% of athletes currently attending elite schools would not have been admitted. Not the same thing!

It means that their results would look the same as the general pool. Pretty basic math mom.

An issue with grasping distinct contexts, it seems. It means 90% of admitted athletes shouldn't have been admitted because they don't meet the normally-very-high academic bar.

It means exactly what it says which is that 89% of the athletes wouldn't have passed holistic review just like the general pool.

Which means they shouldn't have been admitted but they were! Ffs.

It means no such thing, the vast majority of applicant to Tufts are rejected for no other reason than a lack of space. They are perfectly qualified for admission and success from an academic POV. Same for this group. It says that if you took two pools Athletes and non-athletes and admitted from them blindly you would get the same admittance rate! Recruited athlete is the ultimate hook, we all get that but the idea that they were not academically qualified is not supported by that statement. FFS this isn't hard!

NP. It literally says they would not have been admitted. It does not say they met the bar and their athletic ability pushed them over it.

It's a quote from an Op-Ed by a Harvard student that is actually a misinterpretation of one of Chetty's papers. You have zero idea of what you are talking about and are just parroting something that someone put on the internet. You don't even have any idea what the OP-Ed was actually about besides generally something about athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From The Tufts Daily:

One study found that at 19 elite colleges, recruited athletes have a 30% higher chance at admittance than their non-athlete peers. At NESCAC schools, the percentage is even higher, with a 50% increased likelihood of receiving an acceptance letter. The effect of this can be all too tangible in many smaller colleges, such as Williams and Amherst, where about one-third of each incoming class is student athletes. At Tufts, this number is about 13%, or one in eight.

On average, student athletes score 100 points lower on the SAT than non-recruited students admitted to the same institution. This underperformance continues into college: At Ivy League institutions 81% of student athletes graduated at the bottom one-third of their class. Meanwhile, a study conducted on athlete admission to Harvard concluded that “being a recruited athlete essentially guarantees admission even for the least-qualified applicants.” It’s understandable that many athletes’ grades would suffer when considering the immense workload that a commitment to athletics requires, but this doesn’t change the fact that they are receiving academic priority for athletic qualifications. This means that numerous academically qualified students are being denied admission to make space for others who largely haven’t made education their first priority.

Notice that there was no mention that any of them were not academically qualified, because they were and they met an institutional priority.

People constantly want these schools to adjust their priorities to meet their preferences. Seems a bit like affirmative action to me.

But what does that mean? A PP posted a stat that only 11% of them would have been admitted without athletic preference. That suggests many are underqualified, at best.

You do understand that 11% or so is the typical admissions rate for Tufts. It suggests that without athletics they would be admitted like any typical applicant, not that they are underqualified at all.

It means nearly 90% of athletes currently attending elite schools would not have been admitted. Not the same thing!

It means that their results would look the same as the general pool. Pretty basic math mom.

An issue with grasping distinct contexts, it seems. It means 90% of admitted athletes shouldn't have been admitted because they don't meet the normally-very-high academic bar.

It means exactly what it says which is that 89% of the athletes wouldn't have passed holistic review just like the general pool.

Which means they shouldn't have been admitted but they were! Ffs.

It means no such thing, the vast majority of applicant to Tufts are rejected for no other reason than a lack of space. They are perfectly qualified for admission and success from an academic POV. Same for this group. It says that if you took two pools Athletes and non-athletes and admitted from them blindly you would get the same admittance rate! Recruited athlete is the ultimate hook, we all get that but the idea that they were not academically qualified is not supported by that statement. FFS this isn't hard!

NP. It literally says they would not have been admitted. It does not say they met the bar and their athletic ability pushed them over it.

Yes. They might have to pass a pre-read but they still would not have been admitted otherwise, according to the study. Are the pre-read metrics publicly available? No, for good reason.

But part of the holistic review is being a recruited athlete. It doesn't mean they aren't qualified academically.

as has been pointed out, most of these colleges say 90% of the applicants are qualified. it's the extras that push them over. some of you think lacrosse is as impressive as a regeneron winner - most of the world disagrees with you

Most people don't know about or care much about either. If rather than lacrosse you picked football, basketball, or soccer the world would most assuredly disagree with you.

This conversation is about the 'unicorns' within the applicant pools of elite institutions and the preferences given to those who truly stand out. Someone who has won a Regeneron is far more likely to be admitted than your typical applicant because they achieved something worthy of a '1' for a particular portion of the rubric. A recruited athlete did the exact same thing only in a sport. The only difference is that you value the first and not the second. The schools value both and you find that distasteful. The problem isn't with the school, but rather within yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:why do you guys think so many SLACs have this same, sports-heavy model. I'm asking - I am genuinely curious.

like for me, it seems crazy that small colleges are prioritizing the 10th best football player that might be interested in them. Or really any member of the sailing or squash team at all. Why is this an institutional priority.

I went to a big basketball school and I can see from a marketing POV, if your team is on ESPN on a Saturday afternoon, okay. It never made sense to me that these players weren't paid (or even given a scholarship I guess at some schools), but with NIL, I think the standouts are getting their pay.

But for every other sport or for Swarthmore football (if there even is such a thing) - who the f cares?

I would think some school - like maybe Swat or Williams, some place with an intellectual vibe -- would just get rid of all of it. Keep men and women soccer if you want. Or whatever is the heritage sport. But dump 90% of it.

I think there are lots of kids who would be drawn to that. All the NARPs who have maybe good reason to be wary of these schools. Plus these most of these sports are a giant expense for most of these schools. Why wouldn't one school break free?

NARPs have zero reason to be wary of these schools unless they are reading nonsensical drivel about Athletes vs NARPs on places like DCUM. Why do they need their own 'protected places'?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why do you guys think so many SLACs have this same, sports-heavy model. I'm asking - I am genuinely curious.

like for me, it seems crazy that small colleges are prioritizing the 10th best football player that might be interested in them. Or really any member of the sailing or squash team at all. Why is this an institutional priority.

I went to a big basketball school and I can see from a marketing POV, if your team is on ESPN on a Saturday afternoon, okay. It never made sense to me that these players weren't paid (or even given a scholarship I guess at some schools), but with NIL, I think the standouts are getting their pay.

But for every other sport or for Swarthmore football (if there even is such a thing) - who the f cares?

I would think some school - like maybe Swat or Williams, some place with an intellectual vibe -- would just get rid of all of it. Keep men and women soccer if you want. Or whatever is the heritage sport. But dump 90% of it.

I think there are lots of kids who would be drawn to that. All the NARPs who have maybe good reason to be wary of these schools. Plus these most of these sports are a giant expense for most of these schools. Why wouldn't one school break free?

SLACs are VERY dependent on sports for recruiting male students. Many of the male athletes at these schools would likely prefer larger/ less heady universities, but they identify as competitive athletes and SLAC sports allow them to stick with that identity for four more years. They also appreciate the comradery of the team experience.

SLACs find that athletes and frat members are much less likely to transfer out then non-affiliated students. Ironically, this fact makes SLACs without frats (WASP) MORE sports-dependent that other LACs.

some of these schools accept 6% unhooked male applicants. they are not dying for men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why do you guys think so many SLACs have this same, sports-heavy model. I'm asking - I am genuinely curious.

like for me, it seems crazy that small colleges are prioritizing the 10th best football player that might be interested in them. Or really any member of the sailing or squash team at all. Why is this an institutional priority.

I went to a big basketball school and I can see from a marketing POV, if your team is on ESPN on a Saturday afternoon, okay. It never made sense to me that these players weren't paid (or even given a scholarship I guess at some schools), but with NIL, I think the standouts are getting their pay.

But for every other sport or for Swarthmore football (if there even is such a thing) - who the f cares?

I would think some school - like maybe Swat or Williams, some place with an intellectual vibe -- would just get rid of all of it. Keep men and women soccer if you want. Or whatever is the heritage sport. But dump 90% of it.

I think there are lots of kids who would be drawn to that. All the NARPs who have maybe good reason to be wary of these schools. Plus these most of these sports are a giant expense for most of these schools. Why wouldn't one school break free?

NARPs have zero reason to be wary of these schools unless they are reading nonsensical drivel about Athletes vs NARPs on places like DCUM. Why do they need their own 'protected places'?

or reading from the students at the schools themselves and not the moms posting online

https://amherststudent.com/article/bridging-amhersts-athletic-divide/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that's true at some schools. But most of these small schools have a dozen people show up to games/meets/matches. if that.

Athletics can also be a divisive element on campus. We've discussed this so many times here

You've discussed it but it isn't true. That is a fundamental issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why do you guys think so many SLACs have this same, sports-heavy model. I'm asking - I am genuinely curious.

like for me, it seems crazy that small colleges are prioritizing the 10th best football player that might be interested in them. Or really any member of the sailing or squash team at all. Why is this an institutional priority.

I went to a big basketball school and I can see from a marketing POV, if your team is on ESPN on a Saturday afternoon, okay. It never made sense to me that these players weren't paid (or even given a scholarship I guess at some schools), but with NIL, I think the standouts are getting their pay.

But for every other sport or for Swarthmore football (if there even is such a thing) - who the f cares?

I would think some school - like maybe Swat or Williams, some place with an intellectual vibe -- would just get rid of all of it. Keep men and women soccer if you want. Or whatever is the heritage sport. But dump 90% of it.

I think there are lots of kids who would be drawn to that. All the NARPs who have maybe good reason to be wary of these schools. Plus these most of these sports are a giant expense for most of these schools. Why wouldn't one school break free?

NARPs have zero reason to be wary of these schools unless they are reading nonsensical drivel about Athletes vs NARPs on places like DCUM. Why do they need their own 'protected places'?

or reading from the students at the schools themselves and not the moms posting online

https://amherststudent.com/article/bridging-amhersts-athletic-divide/

You posted a single article from a child who wishes all sports were club sports only. I am sure that I can find some more of those for you with a quick college search but the number is small, and it is small for a reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why do you guys think so many SLACs have this same, sports-heavy model. I'm asking - I am genuinely curious.

like for me, it seems crazy that small colleges are prioritizing the 10th best football player that might be interested in them. Or really any member of the sailing or squash team at all. Why is this an institutional priority.

I went to a big basketball school and I can see from a marketing POV, if your team is on ESPN on a Saturday afternoon, okay. It never made sense to me that these players weren't paid (or even given a scholarship I guess at some schools), but with NIL, I think the standouts are getting their pay.

But for every other sport or for Swarthmore football (if there even is such a thing) - who the f cares?

I would think some school - like maybe Swat or Williams, some place with an intellectual vibe -- would just get rid of all of it. Keep men and women soccer if you want. Or whatever is the heritage sport. But dump 90% of it.

I think there are lots of kids who would be drawn to that. All the NARPs who have maybe good reason to be wary of these schools. Plus these most of these sports are a giant expense for most of these schools. Why wouldn't one school break free?

SLACs are VERY dependent on sports for recruiting male students. Many of the male athletes at these schools would likely prefer larger/ less heady universities, but they identify as competitive athletes and SLAC sports allow them to stick with that identity for four more years. They also appreciate the comradery of the team experience.

SLACs find that athletes and frat members are much less likely to transfer out then non-affiliated students. Ironically, this fact makes SLACs without frats (WASP) MORE sports-dependent that other LACs.

some of these schools accept 6% unhooked male applicants. they are not dying for men.

Disagree. Yes, they could certainly half-fill classes with less qualified me if they wanted. So could every other elite school. They want to get as many applications as possible, and to cull the most compelling. Keeping application numbers up is very important.