That makes sense. However, I do think that showing that would be less discouraging for anyone around the bar, which are probably the people most important not to discourage (people significantly below would be wasting their time, people significantly above are more likely to be confident enough to apply).
I think the intent was primarily to speak to potential donors, for whom “these are sample grants like those that would be filled with your marginal donation dollar this giving season” is probably more actionable/motivating.
I guess the framing of the post is pretty relevant: these projects would be over the bar if the LTFF got more donations. (Although I appreciate it being important to avoid discouraging people.)
I might also flag that I don’t think getting rejected generally has costs besides the time you put in and your motivation (someone from LTFF could correct me if I’m wrong). So applying is often worth it even if you think it’s pretty likely that you’ll get rejected. This isn’t to say that rejection is hard; here’s a thread with tips and others’ experiences. But it seems that “Don’t think, just apply (usually)!” is pretty good advice.
I mean, obviously it has non-zero costs from our end for us to evaluate applications. But I think applicants should basically not take that into account when applying; it’s very easy for people to be overly scrupulous when deciding whether to apply. I almost always appreciate more applications for helping us make better informed decisions, and for improving the mean quality of grants that we do fund.
That makes sense. However, I do think that showing that would be less discouraging for anyone around the bar, which are probably the people most important not to discourage (people significantly below would be wasting their time, people significantly above are more likely to be confident enough to apply).
I think this is directionally true but overstated; my impression is that most people are just pretty uncalibrated about this sort of thing.
I think the intent was primarily to speak to potential donors, for whom “these are sample grants like those that would be filled with your marginal donation dollar this giving season” is probably more actionable/motivating.
I guess the framing of the post is pretty relevant: these projects would be over the bar if the LTFF got more donations. (Although I appreciate it being important to avoid discouraging people.)
I might also flag that I don’t think getting rejected generally has costs besides the time you put in and your motivation (someone from LTFF could correct me if I’m wrong). So applying is often worth it even if you think it’s pretty likely that you’ll get rejected. This isn’t to say that rejection is hard; here’s a thread with tips and others’ experiences. But it seems that “Don’t think, just apply (usually)!” is pretty good advice.
I mean, obviously it has non-zero costs from our end for us to evaluate applications. But I think applicants should basically not take that into account when applying; it’s very easy for people to be overly scrupulous when deciding whether to apply. I almost always appreciate more applications for helping us make better informed decisions, and for improving the mean quality of grants that we do fund.