11 ms·

"Mr. Killion said the issue of “truncation,” as it is known within the Common Application offices, is not new, and had been a reality of the process for more th

"Mr. Killion said the issue of “truncation,” as it is known within the Common Application offices, is not new, and had been a reality of the process for more than a decade..." More than a decade? Everyone in that office needs to quit and never work anywhere again.

patio11 16y ago
This is the reality in government, academia, and most businesses in which software does not make money. Here's the exact discussion which you'd have if they called up A Consulting Firm Which Did Lots of Academic Work: "By the way, our common application program has a truncation issue." "Ah, yes, I see that." "What would it cost to get it fixed?" "Ten thousand dollars." + "Ten thousand dollars for something which doesn't get graded by US News and World Report or make us look more prestigious than Yale!?! Screw it, we'll put a note in the handbook." + I am open to commentary that this is too high, but disagree. Getting stuff to fit algorithmically is pretty tricky: BCC doesn't get it right 100% of the time (my heuristics are up to 99.X% and doing it "properly" would take weeks), and the amount of work it took me to get from 90 to 99.X% would be in the neighborhood of $10k if charged out at intermediate engineer consulting rates).
- waterlesscloud 16y ago
  I understand what you're saying, and I don't disagree with your cost estimate at all. I don't think you'd get it perfect in a day, like others have indicated (though I do think you could make it massively better in a few hours). But... This is their product. Their only product. It's what they sell, it's what generates their income. It's not just a cost center, it's the revenue center. And it doesn't serve the customers' needs in a fundamental way. And hasn't in over 10 years. That to me speaks of inexplicable laziness and irresponsibility.
  - macrael 16y ago
    Ahh, but they have no competitors. There is very little reason for them to improve. It's genius! Their entire business model is built on the fact that they don't have competitors. They just have to be good enough for the big schools to sign on, and now that they have that, they have no reason to improve. They are no doubt raking in the cash, but aren't making things better.

patio11 16y ago

This is the reality in government, academia, and most businesses in which software does not make money. Here's the exact discussion which you'd have if they called up A Consulting Firm Which Did Lots of Academic Work: "By the way, our common application program has a truncation issue." "Ah, yes, I see that." "What would it cost to get it fixed?" "Ten thousand dollars." + "Ten thousand dollars for something which doesn't get graded by US News and World Report or make us look more prestigious than Yale!?! Screw it, we'll put a note in the handbook." + I am open to commentary that this is too high, but disagree. Getting stuff to fit algorithmically is pretty tricky: BCC doesn't get it right 100% of the time (my heuristics are up to 99.X% and doing it "properly" would take weeks), and the amount of work it took me to get from 90 to 99.X% would be in the neighborhood of $10k if charged out at intermediate engineer consulting rates).

waterlesscloud 16y ago
I understand what you're saying, and I don't disagree with your cost estimate at all. I don't think you'd get it perfect in a day, like others have indicated (though I do think you could make it massively better in a few hours). But... This is their product. Their only product. It's what they sell, it's what generates their income. It's not just a cost center, it's the revenue center. And it doesn't serve the customers' needs in a fundamental way. And hasn't in over 10 years. That to me speaks of inexplicable laziness and irresponsibility.
- macrael 16y ago
  Ahh, but they have no competitors. There is very little reason for them to improve. It's genius! Their entire business model is built on the fact that they don't have competitors. They just have to be good enough for the big schools to sign on, and now that they have that, they have no reason to improve. They are no doubt raking in the cash, but aren't making things better.