One Dean’s Perspective on the Common Application

By Bruce Poch

Bruce Poch, who has worked at institutions that accept the Common Application since its inception in the mid-1970s, was appointed dean of admissions at Pomona College in Claremont, Calif., in 1987. Since 1995, he has served as the college’s vice president and dean of admissions, a position he will leave at the end of December.

I have worked with the Common Application as an admissions dean since its earliest days, when a mere 28 colleges were members of the organization.

Let’s be clear: the glitch described in a Times article on Thursday does exist, and it is a headache both for students and for colleges — which actually do pay attention to the details of an essay or activities list. There is no excuse for the problem to persist, “common” as it is. It can and should be fixed, not tolerated, and Common Application members should push very, very hard for the repair or move to identify a new service provider.

Application forms shouldn’t add stress to the admission process. (Perhaps apart from writing those essays!)

We know that efforts to make things easier in all things technologically related have not always had the desired result. Anyone who has dealt with the limits of Web forms and standardization, even when filling in an address for shipping, finds that these truncation issues crop up in a world of unintended consequences. We get frustrated.

Fundamentally, the Common Application may have grown too big and too clumsy in its maturity, and in its urge to grow to become even more common. In the process, it has drawn in members that have, because of volume, had much influence on the development of application forms and formats.


A year ago, standardization required that Taiwan be identified in the Common Application as a province of China, not as “Taiwan, Republic of China.” That “unfixable” designation — and politically problematic label and drop-down box — was fixed within weeks.

The simple beginnings of the Common Application involved filling out the form by hand or typewriter and providing photocopies to the smallish number of colleges (and at that time, only selective liberal arts colleges) that participated in the program. It was a good and simple idea.

Then the Web and technology advanced (sort of). Universities joined the program and insisted upon standardized field lengths, and drop-down box definitions for parent jobs, degrees and even individual extracurricular activities. In the process, the push to “common-ness” erased more and more individual student expression.

The tyranny of data systems was making the applicants, rather than the applications, common. Some admissions officers worried that we were losing some important intangibles. But colleges and universities could upload the standard data more easily into unforgiving databases.

Many colleges and universities moved to paperless or semi-paperless processes, and this does have the positive effect of clearing fewer forests. But it may be too easy for students to apply to too many colleges, except for the speed bump of supplements.

Even there, the Common Application has moved to push more rules about what may be included in the supplements particular to individual colleges, as the nonprofit association that oversees the form morphed into a near monopoly and regulatory agency, sometimes limiting colleges from using those things individual institutions may deem important to their communities and considerations.

Those supplements and their length often raise objections from secondary school counselors, students and parents, yet colleges use them to break through all that standardization to see a real and whole person.

The convergence of the Common App technology with other products has become interesting in its reflection of the “corporatization” of the admissions process.

Hobsons, the developer of the “back end” technology that drives the Common Application, also created the back end for Naviance, a records system used in many secondary schools. Hobsons maintains, with that information, proprietary marketing tools it sells to colleges and universities to develop inquiry and applicant pools. Recently, it acquired (and now operates) College Confidential, a Web site where students and parents exchange all sorts of information and cross-talk about individual colleges or the admission process.

A quick link from Naviance to the College Confidential site to individual colleges makes all this integration easy, if problematic. It makes some seasoned admissions deans grind their teeth with frustration about the integration of these tools and services in a way that doesn’t necessarily serve either students or institutions fully.

On the other side of the equation, as a writer of recommendations, I too have suffered the frustration of truncation on forms created not only by Hobsons but also by Embark and ApplyYourself for graduate and professional schools, and for Fulbright Fellowship applications.

I find myself spending more time cutting than writing, and the remains of the comments are sometimes so choppy as to make me seem downright inarticulate, writing in bullet points rather than providing narrative.

Something human is lost in translation. That’s a point I remember with sympathy as I read applications from undergraduate candidates whose work has clearly been abbreviated, sometimes midsentence.

On the other hand, how much should a reader have to fill in with imagination?

To comment on what Mr. Poch has written, please use the box below. To read through the more than 60 comments received thus far on Thursday’s article on the Common Application, click here.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Michael Ball December 23, 2010 · 5:26 pm

As an applicant I like the theory of the CA, which does make it simple for students to apply to multiple schools. But I disagree that such things are the reasons students apply to tons of schools. The reality of that lies in statistics, random numbers, and ultimately the fear created by the College Confidential forums, which on the whole aren’t very supportive. The proliferation of the CA has made it easier to apply to more schools, but not entirely so. Indeed, it’s the test scores, grades, and classes students are often annoyed with filling out multiple times, when in some cases the receive that same information in as many 4 different formats.

As an applicant, I like the idea of the supplements, and I procrastinate on their work… Actually, only a few supplements really turn students off from schools – those of which are comparatively way too long. But some (like UChicago) have, dare I say, fun essay topics that allow personal expression. Others, like Pomona’s I feel give me a real opportunity to explain myself and my background. I think as an applicant looking into a number of schools, it’s about the intangibles for me as well. I prefer some schools programs which may be less ranked and well known to others because I have a sense of me being at that school. The five schools that I have done interviews with have all left me with something new about the school, maybe just from the way they ask questions. (The questions for MIT’s interview were excellent in my opinion, and my Pomona interview was a great conversation that actually touched on some of these problems. Yes, I definitely called the College Board “evil.”)

I think the thing for applicants that get’s them is when Supplements ask for duplicate information than is already in the CA, especially things like my SSN. The idea that schools no longer have freedom in their supplements. Do the super-short answer questions of random favorites really make a difference? In some apps, they don’t give room to show yourself but could lead the reader to make different conclusions when there is, in fact, a very specific reason why that was listed and not something that might make more sense for our major. How much do such small answers really mean to a reader?

OTOH, there’s applications like MIT’s which stray away from a long, entirely open-ended essay of the CA, and move to a few shorter essays which I feel better reveal the applicant. Of course, the also allow the applicant to be more colloquial in his or her writing which I find really interesting comparing different applicants. I guess there’s a point that each school does want to get the real view of each student, and it’s up to us to treat each school’s application properly. Time to finish those apps! :)

Ellen S December 23, 2010 · 6:01 pm

I find it interesting that Mr. Poch complains about the Naviance software. I went to a presentation by private schools in my area and they touted their superior guidance program including the Naviance software as a reason for choosing the private schools over our local public high school that does not offer Naviance.

The colleges have access to data about our kids; that’s how they choose which kids to send mail to encourage them to apply. As my daughter was choosing colleges to apply to, I felt that I was in the dark because I did not have access to Naviance.

You can get a fair amount of information from the common data set. For example, you can see that in 2009-2010, at Pomoa, between 25-75% of the students had an SAT between 710 and 780 on the critical reading and 690 and 770, for math at Pamona, and that 92% of the students are in the top ten percent of their class. But it is very helpful to know the track record that Pomona has with your particular school. It may be that at some high schools there are so many students with high SATs that only those with high SATS are in the running at Pomona or other schools.

I think admissions officers need to know that they cause a lot of heartache among students. Their goal is to have thousands of students fall in love with their school and apply but to only select a small number. They want a bigger pool to choose from. They may be concerned that hat Naviance discourages students from even applying to their school. But maybe the kids are better off not getting their hopes up if they are only going to be rejected and lose the opportunity to apply e.d. at a school that is a better match for them.

Michael Plasmeier (ThePlaz) ’13 December 23, 2010 · 11:16 pm

I applied two years ago (I am now at MIT) to many schools with the Common App.

The problem is that the Common App tries to fit student responses inside a representation of the paper form, as if you typed it in the form with a typewritter. [TurboTax does the same thing to your tax forms] Yes, when you (or the admissions officer) prints it, it looks nice and matches a paper-submitted form, but you are limited to the paper space.

In order to fix this, they would have to alter the output of the system to ditch the paper form and just dump out what you type in. It would be different for the admin reps, and different from people filling it in on paper, but I am sure the reps could get use to it.

gregor samsa December 24, 2010 · 10:25 am

Bruce Poch, as usual, lifts the veil off some of the college admission practices many find so mysterious. He has long been a voice of wisdom in an environment which is becoming ever more corporatized. His explanation of the back story behind the Common App’s phenomenal growth and the forces putting pressure upon it are most enlightening, not the least of which is the tidbit about Hobson’s recent purchase of College Confidential. This is a site I rarely go to because I find the chatter about “What are my chances?” and “What are your stats?” enormously depressing.

On a recent visit to CC to hear what applicants and families were saying about music conservatories, I was surprised to find the Director of Admissions of the Bard College Conservatory participating as an active member. While he helpfully identified himself and answered all questions about Bard, it was a little creepy to realize that a forum in which applicants and parents think they have free reign is also the hangout of an admission official who has the power to admit or deny.

If I think that everyone is watching me, does it mean that I’m paranoid?

Skeptic December 24, 2010 · 4:28 pm

Kudos to Hobsons, Naviance and the Common App for monitoring this post and shaping the responses below. Mr. Ball sounds like the most knowledgeable college applicant I’ve ever met as it relates to the trends of college admissions. Hmmm.

I’m even more troubled by the “parent” posting. If the private high school and Naviance are sharing your students information with colleges, that sounds like a FERPA violation.

To the author of this article, you are spot on. It’s time for some REAL technology companies to begin addressing this marketplace with goal of solving the needs of students.

louise December 25, 2010 · 7:23 pm

it wouldn’t be that difficult to standardize the boxes by word count rather than by character count.

the problem is that the more colleges people apply to, the more pressure for an individual student to lengthen their list. fit is essential.

Michael Ball December 26, 2010 · 2:51 am

Skeptic, I’m certainly in agreement with not trusting Hobsons, but I’m also not related to them.

My experience with college applications comes from spending far too much time doing them this year, and applying to quite a few schools. The applications I’ve mentioned are because I have direct experience with them, regardless of whether or not I actually decided to fill them out. I could make reasonable guesses about the variety and types of other applications, but I certainly know nothing of a very large majority of college applications, but thanks for the compliment!

I really ignored the true problems of truncation and the numerous technical glitches of the CA because I’ve probably ranted enough about them on the blog the past week. (Note a 700 word response on the article posted earlier this week.) Instead, Mr. Poch also talks about some of the ideas behind what a college is even looking for in their application and that’s what I was referring to. Whether or not this sentence means anything to you, I will simply say that anything I post, I will post as honest as possible. :)

Paul December 26, 2010 · 5:39 pm

I feel like the first two responses show the essential paradox of (selective) college applicants. The first argues that College Confidential’s forums are largely non-supportive, while the latter wishes that all applicants had access to Naviance so they could understand their chances realistically (nevermind that admissions is a holistic process and prior results do not guarantee future results; it’s the sentiment that matters). It’s not helpful to tell students they’ll probably get into that Ivy because they’re a good student, but it’s equally unhelpful to tell a student they have no shot because the school to which they’re applying rejects more than 9 out of every 10 applicants! Students need to simultaneously entertain the idea that they could become a student at an elite school they love, and the idea that they probably will not be given that opportunity. It can drive people insane (or make them obsess and vent on college confidential), but it’s the truth of selective admissions.

Regarding the Common App itself, its main accomplishment is to make it easier to apply to many schools. This is both good and bad. It’s good because it allows underprivileged students to easily apply to a wide variety of schools. It’s bad because it allows overprivileged students to apply to the top 25 schools in USN&WR without considering whether any of them are a good fit.

Sophia December 26, 2010 · 7:13 pm

The fact that Mr. Ball was the first person to respond to Mr. Poch’s post, exposing his interest in Pomona College, worries me. My son is in the thick of applications at this moment and the last thing that he has time for is reading blogs and forums concerning the admission process, let along commenting on it. If you are finished with your lengthy list of applications, congratulations. Now go outside and get some fresh air and enjoy these last few months of life before college.

Michael Ball December 27, 2010 · 1:10 am

Paul, well put about the ideas of the process being holistic. Most of my top choices are a reach, but hey, I’ve got good options as backups.

My problem with college confidential forums is that while there are many insightful posts be it current students, other peers, mothers, or even admissions staff–the majority of posts reduce people to posting a long list of stats about themselves, most of which serve little purpose compared to the whole application and then later posting rejection in ultra-large red font. I’ve spent far to much time reading those forums, and in most cases, it undermines the idea of the holistic process, the stats and banter (understandably) make anyone worried.

Sophia, right you are that I need to finish essays, but that’s what I’ve been doing when I’m not spending time with my family, or procrastinating online (here or elsewhere). I feel that there’s value to adding comments to blogs. Google is a wonderful tool, and responses may help someone. Who knows? But lately I’ve been reading a bit too much about this whole process, for no particular reason other than I like reading, and well.. it’s that time.
If my expressing interest in Pomona was seen as a way to somehow help my application, that wasn’t my intent at all. I don’t believe Pomona tracks interest, but I would certainly hope that any blog post would have zero affect on my decision (good or ill). I stated what I did about Pomona’s app because I have a disability and there are two questions which I feel are well worded and give me a chance to explain without necessarily sounding as if I’m asking for self pity or making irrelevant excuses. But honestly, Mr. Poch won’t be reading my applicantion because according to the article he’s leaving his position at the end of this month.

Emma December 27, 2010 · 4:58 am

As an international applicant, the Common App is a bizarre process. It seems like the only thing I do is press buttons that say ‘This doesn’t apply to me’. While I’m sure it fits well for an american, it’s lacks are very obvious. It seems incredibly counterproductive to standardize a form which is supposed to show who ´you are as a human being. And I think this Naviance business shows very clearly the problems with the American system. How can you have a for profit organisation handling the most important moment in a persons life? It’s the same with the SAT’s. People shouldn’t be making money off of something that is supposed to hinder social inheritance. By testing students in madness trivia like vocabulary, you are in effect tying kids with the shackles of their parents’ inadequacies. As a Dane, it is no wonder at all that 50% of Americas wealth is distributed in the top 10%. You’re creating an environment where it is next to impossible to break free of your parent’s social status, because you need expert help to even manage the admissions process to college. I am sure that you have to be smart to do good at the SAT’s. I’m just not sure you have to be stupid not to.