Back when I was in graduate school (early nineties) present-tense stories were the rage (this was the heyday of Raymond Carver, Anne Beattie, Bobby Ann Mason, Mary Robison, etc), and though such stories are less common than they once were, they're still common enough. I'm not one to rail against the use of the present tense (How can I? I'm midway through a new novel that's told in present tense), but I think it's dangerous territory. Specifically, the present tense is supposed to convey a sense of immediacy: you're right here, right now. But if that's the case, why is it that every year when I read MFA applications I find that the present-tense stories feel least immediate?
The reason, I believe, is that present tense is too often used as a cover for a story where nothing is happening. The writer believes (usually subconsciously) that the present tense will make up for a lack of narrative. But it won't. And one of the things I've noticed is how easily the writer will slide into general time. "I go to the store" can mean one of two things. It can mean something immediate: I am going to the store right now, on Monday, to pick up some milk. And it can mean something not immediate: I am a habitual store-goer. Well, in many present-tense stories, I see a whole lot of habitual action and not much action in real time. There's room in fiction for habitual action, of course, but there shouldn't be so much habitual action that it overtakes and overwhelms the action that's taking place in specific time. And though this is a problem that's especially characteristic of present-tense stories, it's not unique to them. Habitual action gets conveyed in past tense stories with the word "would." "I would go to the store." In fact, it's worth doing a computer search of your stories to see how often the word "would" comes up. If you start seeing it multiple times in every paragraph, odds are you have a problem on your hands.