It seems like eons ago that I wrote my application to Brown, but in reality it was only two years ago and I still remember the experience well. Recalling that application process and my time so far here at Brown, the news that we are moving to the Common Application disappointed me immensely.
I believe that Brown's uncommon application was one component of our unique identity, and something that most people I've met here value. Moving to the Common Application is in essence accepting the lowest common denominator of applications as a part of our institutional identity. The Common Application seems to get the job done everywhere else, but why not challenge ourselves to create something better?
As Dean of Admission James Miller '73 told The Herald, a major reason for the change is that the Office of Admissions recognized overlap between the Common Application and Brown's application. I believe this realization should have motivated Brown to differentiate its application from the herd.
An even more unique application, crafted by people familiar with Brown and the college admissions process, would be a much better goal. People who succeed on a more personalized application created by those who know Brown might be more likely to succeed once here.
I will grant that switching to the Common Application in order to make life easier for high school seniors makes some sense. But in the grand scheme of things, how much time will we actually save prospective Brunonians?
As I remember it, by the time I was done with my applications I could write down all my pertinent personal information in my sleep. Having to write this down once on the Common Application and once more on the Brown application is far from a major hassle. The real time is spent on supplements, which virtually all top schools (Brown included) require. These miniscule benefits do not make up for the loss of a unique application.
The Herald presented a stronger argument for adopting the Common App in an editorial last spring ("Common sense," April 15). They pointed out that the wealthier you are, the better your chances of getting into a top school because of the vast array of tools at your disposal during the application process. The Admission Office apparently had this problem in mind as well - Miller told the Herald that the switch would have benefits for those from "less sophisticated backgrounds." The belief is that standardizing admissions will help level the playing field for applicants from low-income backgrounds.
I share the editors' concern regarding this problem, but I do not believe switching to the Common Application will do much to fix it.
Money makes it easier to apply (and get in) in a variety of ways, many of which have a larger impact on an applicant's success than the application itself. Private schools and SAT tutors tilt the balance toward privileged applicants long before candidates start on their applications. Since Brown will continue to require non-standardized essays - another area in which the ability to hire private counselors or attend a school with a strong guidance department helps wealthier students - I doubt that switching to the Common Application will have any significant effect in dealing with the problem.
Since (in theory) the quality of an applicant is all that matters, the discussion should be about making the process less expensive. Brown could enhance equity in a number of ways that don't involve dumbing down admissions requirements or aping our peers. Along with dropping the application price, Brown should dedicate more of its resources to helping low-income high schoolers with the admissions process.
The Common Application offers few, if any, gains in ease or socioeconomic fairness. Instead of chasing after the marginal benefits of uniformity, Brown should create a better, more unique application and focus its resources on the more pressing problems that income disparity in college admissions creates.
Dan Davidson '11 thinks Brown should reinstate the handwritten essay requirement.
