The current debate over whether to choose just one universal human performance technology (HPT) model, in particular Langdon's language of work (LOW) model, promises a shared understanding among HPT professionals, credibility for the HPT profession, and a return on investment of time and effort in developing performance models over more than 70 years. But by narrowing the choices to only one, does this approach restrict performance technologists from choosing options that best meet the needs of the most important stakeholder of the HPT process--the organization? As an instructor in the master's in human resource development (HRD) program at Drexel University, the author allows her graduate students to use Langdon's LOW model exclusively for application purposes, that is, to analyze, diagnose, and solve a particular performance problem that exists in their place of work. The author asks them to use only Langdon's model for several reasons: the model displays the totality of work performance; it is systemic and systematic; it is easy to understand, easy to use, and very methodological; and she finds that using one model makes grading uniform. For these reasons, the author believes that using one performance model, the LOW model, is ideal for students in an academic setting. She also believes that it would benefit the entire HPT community to reduce the number of human performance models because many of them are similar in nature and differ only in semantics. [This commentary is part of an ongoing dialogue that began in the October 2011 "Performance Improvement" special issue entitled Exploring a Universal Performance Model for HPT: Notes From the Field.]