Talk:Common Application

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



I made some changes, but this article still needs work -- it has no information on the printed application and is inconcise in its description of the online one. Sten for the win 23:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


I think there should be a new section on criticisms... a lot of my friends and myself have a lot of problems with the user-friendliness of the service, such as it frequently not saving and deleting saved material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.214.4 (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Could someone highlight the more well known schools in the list? Also are there any well known colleges that DON'T accept the Common App? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.252.15 (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Names of schools[edit]

I am (again) reverting an edit that changed the names of several schools as they appear here, for several reasons - first, in some cases the (appparently) formal name of a school places it well away from where it might otherwise be expected to be found, alphabetically. A good example is Rice University, which now appears here as William Marsh Rice University. Not only does that name make it hard to find, but to the uninitiated, it might appear to be an entirely different school altogether. The change is unnecessarily confusing and appears to run afoul of WP:COMMONNAME. Second, introduction of the definite article "The" before several schools' names is not only confusing as per the foregoing ("Johns Hopkins University" moving to "The Johns Hopkins University") but appears to squarely contradict Wikipedia naming conventions as set forth here. I reverted this once before, which the introducing editor restored along with an invitation to state my concerns more particularly on his Talk page. I have done so here, but he has thus far declined to fix these identified problems.

To be sure, the edit I'm reverting includes some proper edits as well but I think it is incumbent on the editor introducing a change to ensure that his or her edits are in keeping with policies and good practice, rather than making good and bad edits together and leaving cleanup tasks to others. (That being said, if I have time in the next day or so to sort through and pick out the good ones, I will reintroduce them myself.) Please do not reintroduce the wholesale changes without discussing it here first. JohnInDC (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. The idea behind WP:COMMONNAME is pretty darn obvious: We want information to be accessible, not hidden behind secret names most people may not know. It'd be like insisting that we won't refer to aspirin anywhere here at WP: From now on, it's acetylsalicylic acid everywhere and if you don't know to ask for it by that name, too bad. Sometimes, being more exact really isn't a great idea when it gets in the way of communication. I also tried discussing the matter with Xtremerandomness but found myself disappointed with the exchange. Msnicki (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Advocacy pieces by new users[edit]

We have three different new users adding the same advocacy information on this article. Any explanations as to why this is relevant, and are there better sources available? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


Thargor Orlando, you must be documented to be asking such an ignorant and insulting question. If you are an undocumented Common Application user, then information about how the Common Application facilitates and permits discrimination against you by over 400 colleges is incredibly relevant. Actually, it's the most relevant thing you could possibly know about the Common Application, infinitely more relevant than how documented applicants are treated. You are othering and marginalizing people when you label information pertinent to them as "advocacy information." I'm assuming you don't consider information about the extent to which documented applicants can use the Common Application to be "advocacy information" because you have chosen to leave that information still standing.

Your active othering and marginalizing of people is already insulting and then you deem the lives and struggles of undocumented Americans to be irrelevant. Check your privilege. Just because its not your peoples' history and current situation doesn't make it irrelevant. You're engaging in the othering of people, just like how the Common Application forces undocumented Americans to literally "other" themselves when using its application, not allowing them to self-identify. The Common Application's othering of undocumented applicants leads to discrimination when colleges unfairly and inaccurately consider them as international applicants, and your othering of them leads you to deem them irrelevant and delete any mention of them. Wikipedia is not only for documented people. Stop whitewashing.

The information you have taken down four times is, like all the information on the Common Application's Wikipedia page, about the scope, use, and history of the Common Application. You don't seem to have a problem with that kind of information. You seem to have a problem with undocumented people.

How many sources do you want? What facts are in question? You obviously haven't read the sources already listed. They include USA Today, the Chronicle of Higher Education, a primary source video, the Common Application's website, and other selected press. If you think more sources are needed to support any facts then why don't you take the time to google "common application undocumented." There's over a dozen sources for you to choose from. Unconvinced that undocumented Common Application users are a special interest, irrelevant, or nonexistent, I'm going to revert the page back again.

Sincerely, Thoughtfulperson (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:NPOV. What you're writing does not come across as an encyclopedia entry, but rather an advocacy piece, as does your comment above regarding "othering" and telling me to "check my privilege." We have basic standards that we should conform to, and if you don't believe how I've presented the information does the job, can you explain why? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Prynb, see above for some of the issues we've been having. Rampant multiple accounts putting the same irrelevant information in for some sort of social advocacy. If you're not part of that, you have my sincere apologies, but it's inappropriate to make this article a platform for whatever agendas are put out there. Obviously, the website issues are noteworthy and should be reflected in the article using good sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for that. The sources I've added and the paragraph are all sourced and documented by me. Yes, I had to deal with website issues, but I know it wasn't widespread as the media would have us to believe. With application numbers up, I think that should be mentioned, too. I like using Wikipedia as I can get unbiased informational background from it before starting my own independent research.

Prynb (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Prynb


The section on the "Fair Common App" seems disproportionally long. My impression is that it wasn't that big of a deal. Sdkb (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)