<p>I posted this almost a week ago in the common app. forum, and am surprised it hasn't popped up here yet
(or missed it if it has) but as of 2015, the Common App will no longer require member colleges to review applicants holistically, and can do a more stats-driven application review, without consideration of recommendations or an essay.
[quote]
But as the Common App evolves under its new leadership away from the vision of the original 15 member institutions 40 years ago, what we’re really talking about is not so much a common application as a common application software, which stands it in direct competition with other for-profit products with missions not too different from the revised Common App statement.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is interesting- and addresses the $$ issue that seems to be clearly driving this digression from their basic original mission:
[/quote]
But as the Common App evolves under its new leadership away from the vision of the original 15 member institutions 40 years ago, what we’re really talking about is not so much a common application as a common application software, which stands it in direct competition with other for-profit products with missions not too different from the revised Common App statement.
<p>One poster in the other thread thought this meant they were doing away with the essay. That is not correct. they are simply allowing schools to join who don't require an essay or recommendation. they looks at the students stats, not the student's story. So, encourages more to sign on, and erode the mission statement they have followed for 40 years. Very sad.</p>
<p>I guess I don’t understand your concern about this. Applying to schools not on the common app creates more work for students. Isn’t the point to make this as easy as possible?</p>
<p>Not sure how requiring a recommendation necessarily promotes access. First generation or low income students may find getting a recommendation to be a barrier if they are not aware of such things until it is relatively late in the application process, which may reduce the chance of successfully getting a recommendation (teachers or counselors may be too busy to do them on short notice).</p>
<p>There is an option on the common app for the counselor to indicate if they are unable to complete the recommendation. Apparently in California several counselors have been unwilling or unable to write the letters due to over-demanding work schedules or unfamiliarity with the student. Its not a great option, but its an option.</p>
<p>I am bothered by this because its clearly just another money issue. The common app, when it began with 15 schools back in the 70’s, was clear that its mission was to have member schools whose commitment was to look at the students as a whole. Now with the competition of the Universal app, heaven forbid they should loose out signing on more colleges/universities to the Universal App people. So they abandoned their long held mission statement to go after the dollar and sign on as many schools ass they can, regardless if their admissions policies are purely formulaic.</p>
<p>Overworked counselors in public schools seems to be a common problem, not just in California (there was a thread not too long ago where someone reported that teachers and counselors limited the number of recommendations that they would write, so those asking late were out of luck). Presumably, this is another advantage that kids from families wealthy enough to send them to academically elite prep schools have – the smaller counselor loads mean better access to counselor recommendations (and probably counselors more focused on getting students into colleges than the overworked counselors in public schools).</p>
<p>California public universities require no recommendations or other support from the high school at application time, presumably to reduce these barriers to access that likely impact first generation students and those from poor families the hardest, as well as to avoid adding to the workload on the high schools.</p>
<p>Thats all well and good, and unfortunate fort the students and the overworked counselors. The issue to me is merely that Common App is deviating from its core mission statement to snare schools that might otherwise sign on with Universal App. Its all about money, IMO.</p>
<p>If they need more money to augment their evidently tiny technical staff, so that future students don’t have to go through all the stressful chaos that happened in the latest application cycle, I’m all for it. </p>
<p>You haven’t articulated any reason why this is a bad move other than it’s not what they said they were doing a long time ago. My daughter wasted several hours dealing with a non-standard college app that really could have been on some standard format, and I see no reason why students shouldn’t have the most streamlined application process possible. If that means bundling colleges with more diverse admissions policy under one piece of software, I see no harm in that. Many students apply to both types of schools.</p>
<p>Its just a big shift in philosophy. Yes they had egg on their faces for all the technical screw ups. They need to hire better technical people-- so want more $$.</p>
<p>Great for students, counselors, ad coms, and schools looking to attract more OOS students. The internet wasn’t even around when the CA was created. Nothing wrong with changing its mission to better address many of the desires of the above groups even if it was done for business reasons (and so what if it was?)</p>