Tell High School Students to Stop Contacting Professors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have never heard an AO say they require research/mentoring. The consultants must be pushing this.

\What are they supposed to do if they don't have connections or programs available? Why aren't adults supporting these kids more effectively?

"Supporting these kids" requires resources. Professors are paid to teach at university level and do research. It's a separate set of skills to teach high schools -- time intensive and the opposite of productive for faculty.

Even working with PhD students, with whom we are expected to coauthor peer reviewed papers, is an incredible time suck. Working with PhDs makes sense, because they have studied the literature in the field and are at least prepared to do research. High school students, with their limited knowledge bases, are not capable of doing research that pushes the field forward in social science or the humanities. Lab science may be different, but with limited exceptions, I doubt it.

I think high school students would be much better served by learning their prospective fields before trying to push them forward.

Some schools require that high school students apply to specific majors/programs. How precisely do you propose that high school students should be "learning their prospective fields" if there are not programs available and universities aren't interested or set up to do so? Why aren't universities and high schools developing bridge programs highlighting what engineering or programming or ecology fields are like and building lab skills for talented kids?

Hint: the answer is that universities are more interested in pay-to-play than building a talent pipeline.

DP. "Research" is trendy among reddit types and admission consultants and at this point has jumped the shark, like past trends such as volun-tourism, "founding a nonprofit," etc. Since most students at elite universities did not do research in high school, it's hard to argue that it's important for admissions, whether pay-to-play or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have never heard an AO say they require research/mentoring. The consultants must be pushing this.

\What are they supposed to do if they don't have connections or programs available? Why aren't adults supporting these kids more effectively?

"Supporting these kids" requires resources. Professors are paid to teach at university level and do research. It's a separate set of skills to teach high schools -- time intensive and the opposite of productive for faculty.

Even working with PhD students, with whom we are expected to coauthor peer reviewed papers, is an incredible time suck. Working with PhDs makes sense, because they have studied the literature in the field and are at least prepared to do research. High school students, with their limited knowledge bases, are not capable of doing research that pushes the field forward in social science or the humanities. Lab science may be different, but with limited exceptions, I doubt it.

I think high school students would be much better served by learning their prospective fields before trying to push them forward.

Some schools require that high school students apply to specific majors/programs. How precisely do you propose that high school students should be "learning their prospective fields" if there are not programs available and universities aren't interested or set up to do so? Why aren't universities and high schools developing bridge programs highlighting what engineering or programming or ecology fields are like and building lab skills for talented kids?

Hint: the answer is that universities are more interested in pay-to-play than building a talent pipeline.

Umm -- learning their prospective fields. Maybe take a course? Or just do the reading for a course?

If you're angry that admissions officers seem to weigh 'research experience' too heavily, I agree. Where and how high school kids can learn bench skills, I don't know. Maybe in high school labs?

But I'm not a bench scientist. I am a social scientist. There's no effective way to integrate high school students into serious research. In fact, only the most advanced undergraduate students do original research, usually in a thesis. Occasionally, undergraduate assistants can do low level tasks (coding interview responses, putting together a book index), but most faculty members will double check every bit of student work. Paying Lumiere to get a PhD student to 'advise' (or more likely, run) a research project that is signed by a high school student is a waste of time, money, and intellectual effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am horrified by this and would never allow it as a parent. But you are a business professor: they want something from you.

On the other hand, sometimes professors in severely undersubscribed areas are really the ones who should be wanting something from the student. After all, some humanities departments are dying on the vine.

For that reason, I did allow/encourage DC to write two very brief emails: one to a professor in a niche humanities major at a top 10 SLAC, and one to a professor in the same field at a very large but prestigious oos state flagship.

To my great surprise, the large school professor answered; he was lovely and informative. The SLAC professor did not.

Guess where kid did not apply?

The SLAC professor was probably conserving her time for the students who contribute to her salary and for whose learning she is responsible.

The idea that faculty have a duty to respond to unsolicited junk mail is nuts. The idea that mentoring high school students would be cost effective for anyone who is doing PhD level humanities or social science research is also nuts. (I have no lab experience. Though I think the value added of a high school student to a lab would be negative, perhaps there are some low level repetitive-but-not-critical tasks that a young student could be made responsible for.)

One reason Lumiere and the other pay-to-play research experience services cost so much is that they have to pay (very junior PhD and postdoc level) people to mentor them.

No mentoring or research was asked for. Just questions about studying there to decide whether to apply ED. You can disagree on whether the SLAC professor was kind of a jerk, but it is a very bad look for SLACs trying to sell themselves on intimate interaction with students. And it is against the prof's self-interest when the department is only producing a few majors a year...and basically has almost no students "for whose learning she is responsible."

You have no idea how many junk emails a particular professor gets per week. If you're on DCUM you know that many many applicants apply for niche subjects with the plan to switch to econ freshman year.

SLACs have whole departments tasked with responding to queries from high school students. It's not the role of teaching faculty to do so.

You apparently don't know any professors in niche humanities majors at SLACs -- or seem to have much familiarity with SLACs at all.

You also have a very interesting take, namely, that a professor at a dying humanities department with 2-3 majors a year should not make an "email's worth of effort" to secure enrollment of a potential major the following year. If you are the "OP business prof," might I suggest you get to know your colleagues in marketing better?

As for the "role of teaching faculty" (a redundant phrase in discussing SLACs), it is, to be sure, not part of their job description. But that means, in the long run, they are in danger of not having jobs.

I was not the OP.

For SLACs, niche departments are service departments. Anthropology and comparative literature professors often teach, for the most part, non-majors who are fulfilling distribution requirements. Some may lament the lack of serious students committed to their discipline; others may think such students take more time and energy than the average.

A big rebound in, for example, the number of art history or German majors is highly unlikely, even if professors in those departments start responding to emails from random high school students.

That’s really the point: this thread is about contacting professors. I gave an example where a high school student contacting one, before committing to, say, ED is not only appropriate but wise (for an actual humanities kid who will not change majors). If a SLAC professor thinks “having such students take(s) more time and energy” than it’s worth, and does not deign to respond to an email, then that’s something the kid really needs to know — all the more so because it is a SLAC. If a professor is the opposite and is psyched to have any kid expressing real, demonstrated interest in an e-mail (unusual, as you are apparently unaware), that’s great information to have as well. I guess you disagree.

Your point that a humanities rebound is not likely is certainly a profound one. But if a professor can increase their majors by 50% every year or so (even from 2 to 3) by answering a few emails, it is highly advisable that they do so, lest they more rapidly lose yet another tenure track “line” in their department or, worse, have their department permanently “consolidated.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am horrified by this and would never allow it as a parent. But you are a business professor: they want something from you.

On the other hand, sometimes professors in severely undersubscribed areas are really the ones who should be wanting something from the student. After all, some humanities departments are dying on the vine.

For that reason, I did allow/encourage DC to write two very brief emails: one to a professor in a niche humanities major at a top 10 SLAC, and one to a professor in the same field at a very large but prestigious oos state flagship.

To my great surprise, the large school professor answered; he was lovely and informative. The SLAC professor did not.

Guess where kid did not apply?

The SLAC professor was probably conserving her time for the students who contribute to her salary and for whose learning she is responsible.

The idea that faculty have a duty to respond to unsolicited junk mail is nuts. The idea that mentoring high school students would be cost effective for anyone who is doing PhD level humanities or social science research is also nuts. (I have no lab experience. Though I think the value added of a high school student to a lab would be negative, perhaps there are some low level repetitive-but-not-critical tasks that a young student could be made responsible for.)

One reason Lumiere and the other pay-to-play research experience services cost so much is that they have to pay (very junior PhD and postdoc level) people to mentor them.

No mentoring or research was asked for. Just questions about studying there to decide whether to apply ED. You can disagree on whether the SLAC professor was kind of a jerk, but it is a very bad look for SLACs trying to sell themselves on intimate interaction with students. And it is against the prof's self-interest when the department is only producing a few majors a year...and basically has almost no students "for whose learning she is responsible."

You have no idea how many junk emails a particular professor gets per week. If you're on DCUM you know that many many applicants apply for niche subjects with the plan to switch to econ freshman year.

SLACs have whole departments tasked with responding to queries from high school students. It's not the role of teaching faculty to do so.

You apparently don't know any professors in niche humanities majors at SLACs -- or seem to have much familiarity with SLACs at all.

You also have a very interesting take, namely, that a professor at a dying humanities department with 2-3 majors a year should not make an "email's worth of effort" to secure enrollment of a potential major the following year. If you are the "OP business prof," might I suggest you get to know your colleagues in marketing better?

As for the "role of teaching faculty" (a redundant phrase in discussing SLACs), it is, to be sure, not part of their job description. But that means, in the long run, they are in danger of not having jobs.

I was not the OP.

For SLACs, niche departments are service departments. Anthropology and comparative literature professors often teach, for the most part, non-majors who are fulfilling distribution requirements. Some may lament the lack of serious students committed to their discipline; others may think such students take more time and energy than the average.

A big rebound in, for example, the number of art history or German majors is highly unlikely, even if professors in those departments start responding to emails from random high school students.

That’s really the point: this thread is about contacting professors. I gave an example where a high school student contacting one, before committing to, say, ED is not only appropriate but wise (for an actual humanities kid who will not change majors). If a SLAC professor thinks “having such students take(s) more time and energy” than it’s worth, and does not deign to respond to an email, then that’s something the kid really needs to know — all the more so because it is a SLAC. If a professor is the opposite and is psyched to have any kid expressing real, demonstrated interest in an e-mail (unusual, as you are apparently unaware), that’s great information to have as well. I guess you disagree.

Your point that a humanities rebound is not likely is certainly a profound one. But if a professor can increase their majors by 50% every year or so (even from 2 to 3) by answering a few emails, it is highly advisable that they do so, lest they more rapidly lose yet another tenure track “line” in their department or, worse, have their department permanently “consolidated.”

You argue that a professor answering a few emails will result in one or two additional students in their major per year, and that that would be a good use of the professor's time. I disagree on both those points.

However, we are debating without any data here, and I don't think either of us has anything but anecdote. So I think we agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am horrified by this and would never allow it as a parent. But you are a business professor: they want something from you.

On the other hand, sometimes professors in severely undersubscribed areas are really the ones who should be wanting something from the student. After all, some humanities departments are dying on the vine.

For that reason, I did allow/encourage DC to write two very brief emails: one to a professor in a niche humanities major at a top 10 SLAC, and one to a professor in the same field at a very large but prestigious oos state flagship.

To my great surprise, the large school professor answered; he was lovely and informative. The SLAC professor did not.

Guess where kid did not apply?

The SLAC professor was probably conserving her time for the students who contribute to her salary and for whose learning she is responsible.

The idea that faculty have a duty to respond to unsolicited junk mail is nuts. The idea that mentoring high school students would be cost effective for anyone who is doing PhD level humanities or social science research is also nuts. (I have no lab experience. Though I think the value added of a high school student to a lab would be negative, perhaps there are some low level repetitive-but-not-critical tasks that a young student could be made responsible for.)

One reason Lumiere and the other pay-to-play research experience services cost so much is that they have to pay (very junior PhD and postdoc level) people to mentor them.

No mentoring or research was asked for. Just questions about studying there to decide whether to apply ED. You can disagree on whether the SLAC professor was kind of a jerk, but it is a very bad look for SLACs trying to sell themselves on intimate interaction with students. And it is against the prof's self-interest when the department is only producing a few majors a year...and basically has almost no students "for whose learning she is responsible."

You have no idea how many junk emails a particular professor gets per week. If you're on DCUM you know that many many applicants apply for niche subjects with the plan to switch to econ freshman year.

SLACs have whole departments tasked with responding to queries from high school students. It's not the role of teaching faculty to do so.

You apparently don't know any professors in niche humanities majors at SLACs -- or seem to have much familiarity with SLACs at all.

You also have a very interesting take, namely, that a professor at a dying humanities department with 2-3 majors a year should not make an "email's worth of effort" to secure enrollment of a potential major the following year. If you are the "OP business prof," might I suggest you get to know your colleagues in marketing better?

As for the "role of teaching faculty" (a redundant phrase in discussing SLACs), it is, to be sure, not part of their job description. But that means, in the long run, they are in danger of not having jobs.

I was not the OP.

For SLACs, niche departments are service departments. Anthropology and comparative literature professors often teach, for the most part, non-majors who are fulfilling distribution requirements. Some may lament the lack of serious students committed to their discipline; others may think such students take more time and energy than the average.

A big rebound in, for example, the number of art history or German majors is highly unlikely, even if professors in those departments start responding to emails from random high school students.

That’s really the point: this thread is about contacting professors. I gave an example where a high school student contacting one, before committing to, say, ED is not only appropriate but wise (for an actual humanities kid who will not change majors). If a SLAC professor thinks “having such students take(s) more time and energy” than it’s worth, and does not deign to respond to an email, then that’s something the kid really needs to know — all the more so because it is a SLAC. If a professor is the opposite and is psyched to have any kid expressing real, demonstrated interest in an e-mail (unusual, as you are apparently unaware), that’s great information to have as well. I guess you disagree.

Your point that a humanities rebound is not likely is certainly a profound one. But if a professor can increase their majors by 50% every year or so (even from 2 to 3) by answering a few emails, it is highly advisable that they do so, lest they more rapidly lose yet another tenure track “line” in their department or, worse, have their department permanently “consolidated.”

You argue that a professor answering a few emails will result in one or two additional students in their major per year, and that that would be a good use of the professor's time. I disagree on both those points.

However, we are debating without any data here, and I don't think either of us has anything but anecdote. So I think we agree to disagree.

Yes, agree to disagree. But as to my “argument,” your bolded is wrong on a couple of counts; rather than teaching you how to appropriately parse words, I can only say that reading comprehension is your friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am horrified by this and would never allow it as a parent. But you are a business professor: they want something from you.

On the other hand, sometimes professors in severely undersubscribed areas are really the ones who should be wanting something from the student. After all, some humanities departments are dying on the vine.

For that reason, I did allow/encourage DC to write two very brief emails: one to a professor in a niche humanities major at a top 10 SLAC, and one to a professor in the same field at a very large but prestigious oos state flagship.

To my great surprise, the large school professor answered; he was lovely and informative. The SLAC professor did not.

Guess where kid did not apply?

You did allow it.

??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you want them to stop, tell your colleagues to stop admitting students who send these letters.

+1
High school kids do not need to be helping with research. This is a made up thing for admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am horrified by this and would never allow it as a parent. But you are a business professor: they want something from you.

On the other hand, sometimes professors in severely undersubscribed areas are really the ones who should be wanting something from the student. After all, some humanities departments are dying on the vine.

For that reason, I did allow/encourage DC to write two very brief emails: one to a professor in a niche humanities major at a top 10 SLAC, and one to a professor in the same field at a very large but prestigious oos state flagship.

To my great surprise, the large school professor answered; he was lovely and informative. The SLAC professor did not.

Guess where kid did not apply?

The SLAC professor was probably conserving her time for the students who contribute to her salary and for whose learning she is responsible.

The idea that faculty have a duty to respond to unsolicited junk mail is nuts. The idea that mentoring high school students would be cost effective for anyone who is doing PhD level humanities or social science research is also nuts. (I have no lab experience. Though I think the value added of a high school student to a lab would be negative, perhaps there are some low level repetitive-but-not-critical tasks that a young student could be made responsible for.)

One reason Lumiere and the other pay-to-play research experience services cost so much is that they have to pay (very junior PhD and postdoc level) people to mentor them.

No mentoring or research was asked for. Just questions about studying there to decide whether to apply ED. You can disagree on whether the SLAC professor was kind of a jerk, but it is a very bad look for SLACs trying to sell themselves on intimate interaction with students. And it is against the prof's self-interest when the department is only producing a few majors a year...and basically has almost no students "for whose learning she is responsible."

You have no idea how many junk emails a particular professor gets per week. If you're on DCUM you know that many many applicants apply for niche subjects with the plan to switch to econ freshman year.

SLACs have whole departments tasked with responding to queries from high school students. It's not the role of teaching faculty to do so.

You apparently don't know any professors in niche humanities majors at SLACs -- or seem to have much familiarity with SLACs at all.

You also have a very interesting take, namely, that a professor at a dying humanities department with 2-3 majors a year should not make an "email's worth of effort" to secure enrollment of a potential major the following year. If you are the "OP business prof," might I suggest you get to know your colleagues in marketing better?

As for the "role of teaching faculty" (a redundant phrase in discussing SLACs), it is, to be sure, not part of their job description. But that means, in the long run, they are in danger of not having jobs.

I was not the OP.

For SLACs, niche departments are service departments. Anthropology and comparative literature professors often teach, for the most part, non-majors who are fulfilling distribution requirements. Some may lament the lack of serious students committed to their discipline; others may think such students take more time and energy than the average.

A big rebound in, for example, the number of art history or German majors is highly unlikely, even if professors in those departments start responding to emails from random high school students.

That’s really the point: this thread is about contacting professors. I gave an example where a high school student contacting one, before committing to, say, ED is not only appropriate but wise (for an actual humanities kid who will not change majors). If a SLAC professor thinks “having such students take(s) more time and energy” than it’s worth, and does not deign to respond to an email, then that’s something the kid really needs to know — all the more so because it is a SLAC. If a professor is the opposite and is psyched to have any kid expressing real, demonstrated interest in an e-mail (unusual, as you are apparently unaware), that’s great information to have as well. I guess you disagree.

Your point that a humanities rebound is not likely is certainly a profound one. But if a professor can increase their majors by 50% every year or so (even from 2 to 3) by answering a few emails, it is highly advisable that they do so, lest they more rapidly lose yet another tenure track “line” in their department or, worse, have their department permanently “consolidated.”

But it’s not teal interest; it’s demonstrated interest for the purposes of playing the admissions game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have never heard an AO say they require research/mentoring. The consultants must be pushing this.

I have heard it directly from AOs on multiple podcasts. It shows intellectual curiosity and match to major. Those “pointy” kids have research. So common at our school, particularly the kids getting into Harvard, Yale and Stanford.

This is so incredibly toxic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am horrified by this and would never allow it as a parent. But you are a business professor: they want something from you.

On the other hand, sometimes professors in severely undersubscribed areas are really the ones who should be wanting something from the student. After all, some humanities departments are dying on the vine.

For that reason, I did allow/encourage DC to write two very brief emails: one to a professor in a niche humanities major at a top 10 SLAC, and one to a professor in the same field at a very large but prestigious oos state flagship.

To my great surprise, the large school professor answered; he was lovely and informative. The SLAC professor did not.

Guess where kid did not apply?

The SLAC professor was probably conserving her time for the students who contribute to her salary and for whose learning she is responsible.

The idea that faculty have a duty to respond to unsolicited junk mail is nuts. The idea that mentoring high school students would be cost effective for anyone who is doing PhD level humanities or social science research is also nuts. (I have no lab experience. Though I think the value added of a high school student to a lab would be negative, perhaps there are some low level repetitive-but-not-critical tasks that a young student could be made responsible for.)

One reason Lumiere and the other pay-to-play research experience services cost so much is that they have to pay (very junior PhD and postdoc level) people to mentor them.

No mentoring or research was asked for. Just questions about studying there to decide whether to apply ED. You can disagree on whether the SLAC professor was kind of a jerk, but it is a very bad look for SLACs trying to sell themselves on intimate interaction with students. And it is against the prof's self-interest when the department is only producing a few majors a year...and basically has almost no students "for whose learning she is responsible."

You have no idea how many junk emails a particular professor gets per week. If you're on DCUM you know that many many applicants apply for niche subjects with the plan to switch to econ freshman year.

SLACs have whole departments tasked with responding to queries from high school students. It's not the role of teaching faculty to do so.

You apparently don't know any professors in niche humanities majors at SLACs -- or seem to have much familiarity with SLACs at all.

You also have a very interesting take, namely, that a professor at a dying humanities department with 2-3 majors a year should not make an "email's worth of effort" to secure enrollment of a potential major the following year. If you are the "OP business prof," might I suggest you get to know your colleagues in marketing better?

As for the "role of teaching faculty" (a redundant phrase in discussing SLACs), it is, to be sure, not part of their job description. But that means, in the long run, they are in danger of not having jobs.

I was not the OP.

For SLACs, niche departments are service departments. Anthropology and comparative literature professors often teach, for the most part, non-majors who are fulfilling distribution requirements. Some may lament the lack of serious students committed to their discipline; others may think such students take more time and energy than the average.

A big rebound in, for example, the number of art history or German majors is highly unlikely, even if professors in those departments start responding to emails from random high school students.

That’s really the point: this thread is about contacting professors. I gave an example where a high school student contacting one, before committing to, say, ED is not only appropriate but wise (for an actual humanities kid who will not change majors). If a SLAC professor thinks “having such students take(s) more time and energy” than it’s worth, and does not deign to respond to an email, then that’s something the kid really needs to know — all the more so because it is a SLAC. If a professor is the opposite and is psyched to have any kid expressing real, demonstrated interest in an e-mail (unusual, as you are apparently unaware), that’s great information to have as well. I guess you disagree.

Your point that a humanities rebound is not likely is certainly a profound one. But if a professor can increase their majors by 50% every year or so (even from 2 to 3) by answering a few emails, it is highly advisable that they do so, lest they more rapidly lose yet another tenure track “line” in their department or, worse, have their department permanently “consolidated.”

But it’s not teal interest; it’s demonstrated interest for the purposes of playing the admissions game.

Exactly. Lots of schemers in the admissions game. You say your kid is authentic but how would that be apparent in an email? Why is it the professor's job to judge student's sincerity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am horrified by this and would never allow it as a parent. But you are a business professor: they want something from you.

On the other hand, sometimes professors in severely undersubscribed areas are really the ones who should be wanting something from the student. After all, some humanities departments are dying on the vine.

For that reason, I did allow/encourage DC to write two very brief emails: one to a professor in a niche humanities major at a top 10 SLAC, and one to a professor in the same field at a very large but prestigious oos state flagship.

To my great surprise, the large school professor answered; he was lovely and informative. The SLAC professor did not.

Guess where kid did not apply?

You did allow it.

??

Exactly! PP says -- all those obnoxious high schoolers demanding professors' time is not okay. My kid is not obnoxious and has a sincere interest, so it's okay for her to demand a stranger's time.

[Anonymous]

OMG op grow up

[Anonymous]

I agree with you, but you need to take it up with admissions. They’re foolishly moved by these insincere “jobs” and “research”.

[Anonymous]

BECAUSE THERE ARE HIGH SCHOOLS WHO REQUIRE STUDENTS TO DO RESEARCH PROJECTS WITH A COLLEGE PROFESSOR.

My kid had to do that. He cold-contacted dozens of profs in different universities for a school-mandated mini research project. Only one responded, and he was really nice, and my kid was very grateful and tried to take up the least amount of his time as possible. He aced the project and thanked the professor.

You don't even need to respond to these emails, OP. All we're asking is that you stop whining about children who are required by their schools to do certain things. YOU LOOK NASTY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have never heard an AO say they require research/mentoring. The consultants must be pushing this.

I have heard it directly from AOs on multiple podcasts. It shows intellectual curiosity and match to major. Those “pointy” kids have research. So common at our school, particularly the kids getting into Harvard, Yale and Stanford.

This is so incredibly toxic.

We need to go ahead and be done with it by tossing kids into lottery pools once they clear a certain threshold for each school. The arms race is so unhealthy for them.