Brittany Chiu

February 1, 2011

In The Common App Fallacy written by Damon Beres, he argues that students would

have a better chance at getting into college by banning the College Application which does not

help students conduct “individualized search(es)” (Page 85) for colleges that they want to get

into but rather is a “cheap, money-making scheme”(Page 85). The author ultimately informs the

audience of the unfairness and lack of commitment to personal college applications because of

the convenience of Common Applications. He tries to convince the people who work and care

about student college application processes as well as parents, that this will do nothing but harm

the students simply because they “aren’t getting into the schools they want or deserve” (Page

85).

Briefly, this essay is introduced with the author providing the statistics that 11,000

students out of 34,000 students are chosen for NYU’s freshman class alone. No matter what the

GPA is or what the extracurricular activities of his friends and students did, they are simply “shut

out of everywhere” (Page 84). There is no doubt, he explains, that there are definitely increases

in applications; however, while more kids are after higher education, many schools turn them

down. To overcome this obstacle, students apply to whatever position in the university that they

can hold on to. He remarks that with the promotion of Common Application by universities and

College Board, students are tempted to use such “mass applications” “at their disposal” (Page

84). This means that rather than being more beneficial to the student, the Common Application

puts students at a risk because they show a lack of serious interest. The individualism and unique

talents present in the application, essays, and letters of recommendation simply are not there if a

Common Application is used. For the sake of the NYU reputation, the author believes this
application process needs to be gotten rid of. Not only that but he provides a solution where

“Maybe the College Board and Common App should go all-out with their greed… to discourage

students from sending them out with reckless abandon” (Page 85). Conclusively, he believes this

is a better way of students obtaining a better possibility at getting into college.

In the first paragraph, the author relates “miracle “smart” and “lottery” (Page 84) to his

acceptance in NYU. He does not state whether the university is his “dream school” which may

be implied that the author is one of those students using “mass applications” (Page 85). This can

perhaps explain his bitter reaction towards the Common Application. Also his associations with

“population of China” and “Jimmy Carter look[ing] like a lazy old coot” (Page 84) are extreme

but effectively persuasive. In the next paragraph however, he contrasts his lucky acceptance to

his other friends who were rejected by “Ivies” (Page 84). He compares NYU to many other Ivy

League schools such as Harvard and Princeton but NYU is barely comparable to those. To even

consider applying to the Ivies, students must have an outstanding application. A Common

Application simply cannot cut it. This is a false analogy. Therefore, he displays a credible but

irrelevant backdrop to the essay.

From paragraphs 3-5, the author builds up his argument wonderfully. He displays the

purpose of the essay with facts and many useful comparisons such as “reporting substantial

increases in applications” and “schools have a larger, more competitive application pool… kids

are taking spots at universities that they may, in fact, have no little to no interest in” (Page 85).

This information is significant and logical. It captures the sympathetic attention of the audience,

a want to help these students. However, one quote, “The average from people I’ve talked to

seems to be around 10, though many know that I have applied to upward of 16” (Page 85) needs
to be more clarified as to whether it pertains to the age of the group or the number of people he

talked to.

Shifting to paragraph 6, the author irritatingly deviates to another use of false analogy. He

completely goes tangent on famous people who have gone to NYU and further compares it to

Harvard. Lastly, paragraphs 7 and 8 provided a wonderful thesis to this essay with such passion.

Not only that but he provides a solution, “Maybe it has to be a joint endeavor… to discourage

students from sending them out with reckless abandon” (Page 85), which adds to his argument.

However, with the last paragraph, it seems to be out of place as it does not properly conclude this

essay. The statistics would best be placed after paragraph 1 and before paragraph 2. This would

better support and lead into his argument.

Overall, I agree with Beres on this issue. This is because I used the Common Application

for most of my school applications due to a rushed schedule. I barely put effort and time into

what I do and just went through the process of “point-and-click” (Page 85). Put simply, it was

convenient and fast. I also agree with his solution that if Common Application was to be gotten

rid of, then students would put more effort and time into college applications. Each student

would at least be distinguishable from each other rather than "common answers" such as "Did your

parent attend our college? Have you visited our university?" etc. (Common Application form). His use of

statistics further motivate me to encourage my future children to limit the use of Common Applications

such as “Massachusetts Institute of Technology accepted 1,553 out of 12, 448” and his comparison to “I

have about a one-in-five chance of winning on a “Crazy Cash” scratch-off ticket” (Page 86). However,

one flaw in his statistics is that not all people who were rejected used the Common Application. They

were probably rejected because they were less qualified. Nonetheless, it can be argued that people who
apply to such prestigious colleges, like “Harvard” (Page 86) have all the qualifications as other students

to be accepted and all that remains quality of determination in that application.