Admissions Blog

Undergraduate Admissions Uncensored

Top schools continue to see more ACT scores

Posted on by Leave a Comment

Despite whatever feelings he has about the ACT, Georgetown’s admissions dean Charles Deacon concedes that the highly-selective university saw an increased number of students taking and submitting ACT scores this year. According to The Hoya, Georgetown’s student-run newspaper, the number of students submitting ACT scores was about even with those submitting SAT scores among this fall’s early applicants.

And this is a relatively new phenomenon.

For more than a half century, the ACT ran a distant second to the SAT in the high-stakes college admissions race. It was the “We Try Harder,” entrance exam—popular in the Midwest and the South but hardly worthy of notice on either coast.

But that all changed several years ago, as the ACT pulled ahead of the SAT in terms of test-taking popularity.  And since then, the ACT has continued to widen the gap.

It’s not that the College Board is hurting for customers. In fact, more test-takers completed the new SAT from March through June of 2016 than took the old SAT during the same period in 2015, according to a report published by the College Board last fall.

But the number of high school graduates taking the ACT soared to a record 2.1 million students—nearly 64 percent of graduating seniors. From 2012-2016, the number of ACT test-taking high school grads increased by 25.5 percent, while the estimated overall number of graduates has increased by only 1.3 percent, leaving the College Board with something serious to think about.

In all fairness, a significant percent of the growth experienced by the ACT is a direct result of the adoption of the ACT for statewide assessment. For the graduating class of 2016, the ACT was administered to all public school graduates in 20 states. These students were pretty much required to take the ACT—like it or not.

But the good news for the ACT doesn’t end there. Not surprisingly, the number of tests submitted for admissions purposes shows a similar trend.  Colleges are definitely seeing way more ACT scores than they did a decade ago. And it appears that many more students are taking both tests and submitting both sets of scores for consideration by colleges, particularly uber-selective institutions.

According to the New York Times, there appears to be a real “shift in the behavior of top high school students,” as many more choose to work toward high scores on both tests.  And that’s okay with top colleges.

“I don’t know all the pieces of why this is happening, but I think more students are trying to make sure they’ve done everything they can,” said Janet Rapelye, dean of admissions at Princeton University, in an interview with the Times. “And for us, more information is always better. If students choose one or the other, that’s fine, because both tests have value. But if they submit both, that generally gives us a little more information.”

And applicants are getting the message.  Those with top scores on both tests want colleges to have the benefit of knowing they did well on both.  On the flipside, those who did significantly better on one test or the other tend to only submit the better set of scores—depending on the specific rules of the particular college or university.

It will be interesting to see how this trend evolves as “new” or redesigned SAT test results make their appearance among this year’s admissions decisions, particularly as the SAT has transformed itself into yet another curriculum-based test and blurred its differences with the ACT.

Regardless, based on test-submission patterns easily tracked for colleges posting Common Data Set information, the College Board has a very real challenge making up for ground lost to the ACT.

Here is a sample of test-submission statistics for the freshman class entering in 2005 as compared to the classes entering in fall 2016 (note that yearly totals exceeding 100% indicate colleges considered both the SAT and the ACT for some students):

Amherst College
2005 SAT:          87%                         vs.          2005 ACT:          13%
2016 SAT:          52% (53% in 2015)vs.          2016 ACT:          51% (49% in 2015)

Auburn University
2005 SAT:           31%                        vs.          2005 ACT:          69%
2016 SAT:           12% (14%)             vs.          2016 ACT:          87% (85%)

Carnegie Mellon University
2005 SAT:           98%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           17%
2016 SAT:           78% (84%)             vs.         2015 ACT:           41% (37%)

Case Western Reserve
2005 SAT:           89%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           58%
2016 SAT:           50% (57%)             vs.         2016 ACT:           66% (62%)

College of William and Mary
2005 SAT:           97%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           3%
2016 SAT:           77% (80%)             vs.         2016 ACT:           44% (44%)

Cornell University
2005 SAT:           98%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           18%
2016 SAT:           69% (75%)             vs.         2016 ACT:           51% (45%)

Dartmouth University
2005 SAT:           89%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           11%
2016 SAT:           53% (59%)             vs.         2016 ACT:           47% (41%)

Georgetown University*
2005 SAT:          95%                         vs.           2005 ACT:            7%
2015 SAT:          78% (84% in 2014)vs.           2015 ACT:          47% (40% in 2014)

Lehigh University
2005 SAT:           98%                        vs.          2005 ACT:            2%
2016 SAT:           58% (63%)             vs.          2016 ACT:          42% (37%)

Princeton University
2005 SAT:           100%                      vs.         2005 ACT:           N/A
2016 SAT:           73% (80%)             vs.         2016 ACT:           45% (36%)

Stanford University
2005 SAT:           97%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           23%
2016 SAT:           77% (80%)             vs.         2016 ACT:           51% (51%)

Swarthmore College
2005 SAT:           99%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           14.9%
2016 SAT:           67.5% (73%)          vs.         2016 ACT:           48.7% (46%)

University of Michigan
2005 SAT:           55%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           66%
2016 SAT:           26% (27%)             vs.         2016 ACT            82 (83%)

University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
2005 SAT:           99%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           22%
2016 SAT:           71% (76%)             vs.         2016 ACT:           78% (74%)

University of Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh campus)
2005 SAT:            99%                       vs.         2005 ACT:           20%
2015 SAT:            80% (85%)            vs.         2015 ACT:           50% (47%)

University of Virginia
2005 SAT:           99%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           14%
2015 SAT:           77% (82%)             vs.         2015 ACT:           50% (44%)

Vanderbilt University
2005 SAT:           89%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           53%
2015 SAT:           37.6% (41%)          vs.         2015 ACT:           67.2% (63%)

Virginia Commonwealth University
2005 SAT:           95%                        vs.         2005 ACT:            15%
2015 SAT:           81.1% (87.4%)       vs.        2015 ACT:              26.4% (26.9%)

Washington and Lee University
2005 SAT:           80%                        vs.         2005 ACT:           18%
2015 SAT:           37% (46%)             vs.         2015 ACT:           63% (53%)

Wesleyan University
2005 SAT:            94%                       vs.         2005 ACT:           18%
2015 SAT:            58% (61%)            vs.         2015 ACT:           41% (38%)

*The most recent Common Data Set posted online is 2015-16

UVa admits 9,957 for Class of 2021

Posted on by Leave a Comment

Hours before Associate Dean of Admission Jeannine Lalonde (Dean J) posted her usual heads up to applicants that the University of Virginia was getting ready to post decisions, gizmo18 let the cat out of the bag on College Confidential: “Decisions come out today!”

Seven hours later, Dean J confirmed that applicants could expect to see one of three decisions—admitted, denied or waitlisted—sometime in the next few hours. And by 5:00, the wait was over.

“I can’t believe it! I got in,” crowed one happy applicant.  “After straight rejections from Northwestern and GaTech I thought it was over. Words cannot describe my excitement.”

Another reported, “Didn’t expect much after rejections from Northwestern and Uchicago last week. But I’m happy I was proven wrong!!!! I was worried that writing my essay about Nike and Adidas in the sneaker industry was weird, but I guess not!!!!!!!!”

And from KingUU: “I got accepted! I’m so happy! Dreams can be real! UVA was my number 1 choice.”

But the news wasn’t universally happy.

“Deferred then waitlisted in state,” moaned another applicant. “Bruh just reject me already.”

Others were more philosophical, “Deferred EA, rejected RD. It was a long shot, but I definitely learned a lot about myself through it. Congrats to all who got in and good luck to everybody!”

To give the decisions context, Dean posted preliminary numbers for this year later in the week and recommended that admissions junkies with a real “need to know” could research numbers using a new tool devised by the UVa assessment team for presenting data in Tableau.

But the simple comparison with 2016 is interesting enough. Last year at this time, UVa reported receiving 32,426 applications (this number tends to jump around a little)—a significant increase from the previous year—and made initial offers to 9,416 students.

For this year’s class, the total number of applications soared to 36,807, with the number of in-state applicants increasing from 9,653 reported a year ago to 10,942 for the class of 2021.

The biggest contributing factor to the overall increase in applications, however, was the bump from out-of-state students who submitted 25,865 applications—up from 22,773 during 2015-2016.

To account for a steadily decreasing yield (percent of students accepting offers), which dropped from 53 percent in 2005-06  to 38 percent in 2016-17, as well as a need to continue growing class size, admissions increased offers to 9,957—about six percent more than last year. Of these offers, 4,276 went to Virginians (4,019 last year), and 5,681 went to out-of-state students (5,397 last year).

Early action admits accounted for 5914 of total.  And the initial admission rate decreased to about 27 percent from 29 percent last year.

According to information provided by UVa to the Common Data Set, 4,987 students were offered spots on the wait list last year, and 2,871 accepted the offer.  Of those students, 360 were eventually admitted.

In any event, here are all the “unofficial” numbers released by the UVa admissions office:

Total number of applications: 36,807 (up from 32,426 last year)
Total number of VA applications: 10,942 (up from 9,653 last year)
Total number of out-of-state applications: 25,865 (up from 22,773)

Overall offers: 9,957 (9,416 this time last year)
Total VA offers:  4,276 or 39% of resident applications (4,019/41.6% last year)
Total out-of-state offers:  5,681 or 22% of nonresident applications (5,397/23.7% last year)

Note that the offers of admission for nonresidents are higher because historic yield for nonresidents is generally lower than that for in-state student.

In a press release, UVa reports that of those admitted, over 1,000 are first-generation college students and more than 35 percent identify as members of a minority group. They come from all 50 states and 89 countries around the world.

And they present outstanding credentials. For those admitted who submitted new SAT scores, the middle 50 percent range was 1330-1490 (Dean J notes that “way more” students submitted the new SAT than the old, so she dropped the stats about the old exam). The middle 50 percent ACT composite was 31-34. And 93.4 percent of admitted students were in the top ten percent of their high school class, for those who attend schools that report rank.

Admissions data visualized

Posted on by Leave a Comment

Once again, self-described “tableau dabbler,” Jon Boeckenstedt, associate vice president for enrollment management at DePaul University, has come up with easy-to-use tools for visualizing basic college admissions data.

Drawing from information compiled in Peterson’s Undergraduate database and the Peterson’s Undergraduate Financial Aid database, both copyright 2016 by Peterson’s-Nelnet, Boeckenstedt has created a series of ten “views” or charts showing test scores, male and female admit rates, early decision vs. regular admit rates, need data as well as some general international student information to be used with caution.

And the colorful “optics” can be very revealing as well as educational for anyone putting together a college list.

For example, by looking at “SAT Math distributions,” it’s very easy to see that an applicant to Caltech with less than a 700 Math SAT has nearly no chance of admission as 98.9 percent of the freshman class entering fall 2015* (the teal-color bar) had math scores over 700 (exact numbers can be found by hovering your mouse over the bar).  Judging from ACT Composite distributions, the student with less than a 30 Composite ACT score had no chance of admission to Caltech.

Using the same database, Boeckenstedt lays out 25th and 75th percentiles for SAT CR and Math scores as well as ACT Composites. Looking at the ACT view, for Stanford University, the 25th percentile of the distribution was 31 and the 75th percentile was 35—not too promising for a student with an ACT Composite below 31.

“While test scores are not the primary factor in admissions decisions, these charts can give you a good sense of where you might stand in the applicant pool,” explained Boeckenstedt. “And while you might not eliminate yourself from consideration if your scores are close to the border between one range and another, it’s clear that high scores are an important consideration at many of these institutions.”

Admit rate data, or the percentage of applicants offered admission, is equally interesting.  The chart illustrating the difference between admit rates for men and women shows exactly how wide the margin can be. For example, in fall 2015, the admit rate for men at Vassar College was 35.4 percent and for women was 21.5 percent—a significant difference easily visualized by the distance between the purple and orange dots. At Harvey Mudd College, the admit rate for men was 9.4 percent while the admit rate for women was 21.4 percent—the dots are reversed!

But it’s the chart documenting the early decision (ED) and overall admit rates and their difference that could possibly suggest application strategies.  In fall 2015, the admit rate for ED candidates at Tufts University was 39.2 percent, but the overall admit rate was only 16.1 percent, suggesting a huge advantage for ED applicants. This is confirmed in the light blue bar to the right of the chart showing the difference between the two rates.

Boeckenstedt warns that it’s important to be realistic about admit rates. “A 15% admission rate does not mean that your chances are one in seven; your chances may be better or worse based on any one of many factors in your file.”And, “if you’re a top student in the applicant pool, your chances are probably better; if not, and if there is nothing else to get your application noticed, your chances are almost certainly worse.”

He goes on to add, “…it’s clear that Early Decision makes the choice about where to apply, and under what plans, even harder.”

All of Boeckenstedt’s charts may be filtered by state. And to navigate the various views, simply click the gray boxes or arrows along the top. Use the scroll bar to move down the view, and hover over any data point to show details.

For the record, all the score information is given in terms of the “old” SAT and not the “new” SAT.

*3/17/17 Correction

Save

Save

The Common Data Set Part 2: Colleges by the numbers

Posted on by Leave a Comment

Connecting with the Common Data Set (CDS) for a particular college or university will provide you with a wealth of information to kick-start your college search.

And, the information found on these pages may be more current and complete than what’s posted on college search websites or that contained in college guides.

Check this out: the 2017 College Board College Handbook was printed in June, 2016 and is based on data provided to the CDS for 2015-16. The 2018 edition with 2016-17 data won’t come out for months.

But many colleges have already posted their 2016-17 CDS survey responses, with more up-to-date information. So why not get a jump on the 2018 handbook and go directly to “source documents” found on institutional research pages?

In your research, you’ll find that not every website or guide uses all the information available through the Common Data Set. Not all will provide details on wait lists or transfers. But once you get familiar with CDS questions and format, you’ll discover these details are usually there and very accessible.

In addition, you can research trends by looking at CDS data over a series of years. That’s a plus when looking at retention or graduation rates, where you always want to see improvement. The College of William and Mary is extraordinarily helpful in this way, posting full Common Data Sets from as far back as 1997-98.

Keep in mind that the CDS is a voluntary project in which colleges “self-report” information with little or no centralized technical support or oversight.  In other words, the data can be inaccurate or slanted in ways that favor the institution.

Note that you can always cross reference the CDS with College Navigator. But even then, the data is only as good as that which colleges may be willing or able to provide, and it sometimes lags the most recent CDS posting.

In the way of an introduction, here is a tour of the basic Common Data Set:

  1. Enrollment. Questions B1 and B2 provide the size of the institution as well as provide you with a breakdown of what the campus community looks like in terms of race and ethnicity.
  2. Graduation Rates. Questions B4 through B11 address “persistence” or what percent of students graduated within a specified time frame. You can easily compute 4-year graduation rates by dividing B7 (completions within four years) by B6 (the total class size). For example, the University of Virginia graduated 87.8 percent of the class beginning in 2010, within four years. Question B11 simply states the 6-year graduation rate of 94.1percent.
  3. Freshman Retention. Question B22 provides the freshman retention rate based on the date an institution calculates its “official” enrollment—a number subject to some manipulation depending on who is counting and on what day.
  4. Admissions. Using the answers to C1, you can get male/female as well as overall admit rates (selectivity) by dividing the number of admitted students by the number of applicants. This can extremely interesting when trying to determine the level of admissions difficulty for men vs. women or your basic odds of getting in. For example, in the fall of 2016, the College of William & Mary admitted 43 percent of its male applicants but only 32 percent of the females who applied.
  5. Yield. Once again using the responses to C1, yield may be computed by dividing the total number of enrolled students by the number admitted. Because of the sensitivity and importance of this number in college rankings, the definitions of “admitted” and “enrolled” can be different at different institutions.
  6. Wait list. The answers to C2 speak to the use of the wait list and the likelihood of admission from the wait list. In the spring of 2016, Dartmouth College offered 2064 students places on the wait list for a class eventually totaling 1121. Of those, 1194 accepted spots on the list. From that group, 16 were admitted.
  7. Other Admissions Factors. C7 outlines the relative importance of academic and nonacademic factors in admissions decisions. This may be a good place to see if interviews are available and how important they may be. Wake Forest University and Carnegie Mellon University consider the interview “important,” while Johns Hopkins and William & Mary simply note that the interview is “considered.”
  8. GPA. C12 provides the average high school GPA of enrolled freshmen. Because it’s hard to know if the number is weighted, unweighted or recomputed, the GPA response is left out of many college guides. It’s also a question that’s frequently left blank by colleges.
  9. Early Decision Advantage. Question C21 covers early decision and early action plans. This is where you can discover how much of an advantage it might be to apply to an institution early decision. For example, for fall 2016, the College of William and Mary received 1003 early decision applications and admitted 519 or 52 percent. Going back to question C1, a quick computation shows the overall admit rate to be much lower—37 percent. At Dartmouth, 26 percent of the early decision candidates were admitted according to Question C21, while only 11 percent were admitted overall.
  10. Transfers. D2 indicates how many transfer applications were received, how many students were admitted, and how many eventually enrolled. Other basic information on the transfer process includes the terms during which transfers may enroll (D3), minimum credit units required for transfer (D4), the need for an interview (D5), and a minimum college grade point average a college wishes to see for a transfer (D7).
  11. Residency. Under the “Student Life” section (F1), you can see the percent (and number) of out-of-state students (excluding international students) enrolled. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill enrolled 16 percent out-of-state students in fall 2016, while the College of William and Mary enrolled 34 percent.
  12. Annual Expenses. Questions G0 through G6 lay out undergraduate tuition, fees and room and board. More current data for the coming year would probably be found on an individual school website and if you’re interested, G0 gives a direct link to an institution’s net price calculator.
  13. Financial Aid. The H section is devoted to financial aid, including scholarships/grants and “self-help” awards. Question H2A provides information on non-need-based scholarships and grants, including athletes. And for international students, H6 answers the question of whether or not institutional aid is available to “nonresident aliens.”
  14. Percent of Need. Question H2i provides the percent of need a college claims was met for students awarded any need-based aid. For the 2016-17 reporting period, Temple University met 69 percent of need for incoming full time freshmen. Towson University met 54.8 percent and Bucknell University met 91 percent of need, while Stanford University and UVa claimed to meet 100 percent of need (keep in mind the “need” is a pretty subjective term).
  15. Faculty and Class Size. Questions I1 through I3 cover the range of territory relating to student-to-faculty ratio and average undergraduate class size. This is a complicated area full of definitional issues, but since colleges make a point of bragging about how small their classes are, you may want to take a look.

If this kind of analysis gives you a headache, feel free to use comprehensive college search websites and guide books that aggregate and re-work the data into more user-friendly formats.

But if you can’t wait until mid-summer and like the idea of going directly to the source, visit the CDS webpages for colleges you are researching.

This is the second in a two-part series on the Common Data Set. For sample links to CDS webpages, go back to Part 1.

Save

The Common Data Set Part 1: Where the pros get their numbers

Posted on by Leave a Comment

Did you ever wonder where some college guidebooks and online search engines get their information?  Are you curious about how publications like US News & World Report collect data for rankings?  Would you like to go directly to the source?

If so, let me introduce you to the Common Data Set, an amazing resource anyone can access—if you know how.

The backstory is simple.  The Common Data Set (CDS) was created as a way to satisfy the public’s insatiable appetite for college knowledge and statistics.

According to the CDS website, the Common Data Set initiative is “a collaborative effort among data providers in the higher education community and publishers as represented by the College Board, Peterson’s, and U.S. News & World Report. The combined goal of this collaboration is to improve the quality and accuracy of information provided to all involved in a student’s transition into higher education, as well as to reduce the reporting burden on data providers.”

So rather than answer a zillion questions from many different publishers and websites, colleges fill out a lengthy standardized form each year. Data is collected and compiled and doled out to publishers which use it for everything from college rankings to online college search tools.

And many colleges are kind enough to publish their CDS surveys on their websites so anyone can have access to the information. And if you get familiar with the various data fields, it’s a goldmine covering everything from admissions statistics to financial aid.

Typically, you can find CDS responses by going to a college’s Institutional Research Office webpage or by using the website search function and entering “Common Data Set.” You can also Google “Common Data Set” and institution name. If the information is posted, it will appear as a link.

But not all schools post the CDS and URL’s change frequently, so don’t be alarmed if after several attempts nothing comes up. A number of colleges simply don’t want the public to have easy access to what may be unflattering statistics or information they feel could be misinterpreted.

Frankly, I’m always a little suspicious of colleges that refuse to post CDS information, but Columbia University and the University of Chicago probably don’t care what I think.

And keep in mind that the folks who administer the CDS don’t audit the information for accuracy.  They rely on colleges and universities to provide accurate and truthful information, which isn’t always the case as we’ve learned from the repeated scandals involving US News.

Also, it’s fair to say that colleges sometimes differ about terms and definitions.  For example, the CDS provides little guidance on what is required for grade point average information—weighted, unweighted, or recomputed.  As a result, the reports on GPA are sometimes one and other times another.  And often, the question (C12) simply isn’t answered.

Finally, don’t confuse the Common Data Set with the federal government’s College Navigator. They involve two different reporting systems and produce two different reports in different formats.

But for hardcore data junkies, the Common Data Set is hard to beat. Depending on the time of year, it’s more current than what you’re likely to find in any print guide or website.

To get started, here are some sample CDS links:

This is the first part of two-part series on the Common Data Set. The second part will drill a little deeper into CDS questions and content.

UVa increases early admission offers to 5914 for the Class of 2021

Posted on by

Early applicants to the University of Virginia’s Class of 2021 received decisions earlier this week—well ahead of the January 31st published release date.  Following the recent announcement from UVa President Teresa Sullivan that she will be leaving at the end of her current contract in 2018, the admissions office decided to give over 5000 prospective ‘Hoos some good news to consider.

And it’s clear that admission to the Commonwealth’s flagship university remains a highly sought-after prize among high school students—both from within the state and across the country.

Even with plans to increase undergraduate enrollment for 2017-18, the competition for admission under UVa’s early action program continues to be intense, as the overall number of applications grew to 20,446—about a 24 percent increase over numbers reported the same time last year.

Predictably, most of the early applicants, 14,968 (or 73 percent) came from out of state. The balance—5,278 applicants—came from within Virginia.

Out of this year’s early action pool, 5,914 students were admitted—about 14 percent more than for the Class of 2020, which experienced a seven percent jump in EA admits from the year before. Of those admitted, 2,575 were from Virginia (47 percent offer rate—down three percentage points), and 3,339 were from out of state (22 percent offer rate).

Among the offers, 4,496 were for the College of Arts & Sciences, 1,180 were for the School of Engineering and Applied Science, 97 were for the School of Architecture, 75 were for the School of Nursing, and 66 were for the Curry School of Education.

Typically, more offers are made to nonresidents because the yield among students faced with out-of-state tuition is significantly lower. But it’s worth noting that offers made to out-of-state students increased by over 13 percent from last year.

According to assistant admissions dean Jeannine Lalonde (Dean J), those offered early admission bids were very well qualified. The middle range of SAT scores of this year’s admitted students fell between 2020 and 2290 (ACT between 31 and 34). And 94.6 percent of the offers went to students in the top ten percent of their high school classes (this number only reflects those who attend schools that report rank).

Although over 9000 students were denied admission during the first round of consideration, another 5458 were thrown a lifeline by being deferred to the regular decision pool, which stands at about 16,250 additional applicants. The entire group will receive decisions before April 1. Note that deferred applicants are specifically encouraged to send new test scores and midyear grades as soon as possible.

All students will have until May 1, to make up their minds. And those early applicants who were lucky enough to be admitted to UVa’s Class of 2021 can expect to receive significant encouragement to commit as soon as possible.

Nancy Griesemer is an independent educational consultant and founder of College Explorations LLC. She has written extensively and authoritatively about the college admissions process and related topics since 2009. 

Dealing with deferral

Posted on by

Yale University deferred 53% of applicants for the class of 2021 to regular decision out of 5086 students who applied “single-choice” early action this fall.  Duke deferred  671 out of 3516 binding early decision candidates, while MIT deferred 5853 of its 8394 early action applicants.

Notre Dame deferred 893 out of 6020 Restricted Early Action (REA) candidates, while Georgetown deferred all students not accepted to a similar REA program to the spring review. Brown deferred 60% of 3170 early decision candidates to regular decision, at the same time Middlebury deferred about 9% of 673 early decision applicants.

Although each of these schools has its own enrollment management strategy for dealing with deferred students,  it’s clear that way too many who applied early this fall are finding they’ve been neither accepted nor rejected, but deferred to the regular admissions pool.

And if you find yourself in this position, know that you’re not alone.

Because many colleges received record numbers of early applications, it stands to reason that unless acceptances increase, you have considerable company—mostly very disappointed.

But try to put the best face on your disappointment. Think of deferral as a kind of holding pattern. A college may be sending a signal it needs to know a little more about you before making a final decision. The admissions office may want to see your application in the context of the entire applicant pool or may simply want to see how well you’re continuing to do senior year.

You can also interpret the message as an opportunity to regroup or reconsider your application strategy.  For some students, a deferral can be a wake-up call. Make sure you are applying to a solid mix of schools, including a sufficient number of colleges where there is a good or better likelihood you will be admitted.

If you continue committed to the college that deferred you, don’t despair. Although there are no guarantees, you can either respond to the challenge or wait for the next round of decisions to come out in the new year.

I recommend responding. And here’s how:

1. Do not crash—finish those applications. There’s no question this is a setback. It’s normal to feel disappointment, but don’t allow it to be crippling. Most importantly, don’t let this relatively minor bump in the road delay completion of the rest of your applications. Finish remaining essays as soon as possible and try to submit well in advance of due dates.

2.  Understand and follow the rules.  Before doing anything, be sure to review and understand deferral policies. Some colleges are quite clear that deferred applicants should not call, write, or send additional materials. Others will welcome communication.  Know the policy and form a plan of action to appropriately address the deferral.

3. Contact Admissions. Try calling or emailing the admissions representative for your area. He or she most likely read your application and possibly remembers you. It’s a busy time of year for admissions, but if you’re lucky you might get personal feedback and a sense of how your application stacked up against the rest of the early pool. You might also get ideas on how to strengthen your candidacy by clarifying misunderstandings or by submitting additional test results, information, or recommendations. But whatever you do, resist the temptation to complain or badger the staff.

4. Update your application. Although colleges require that official midyear grades be sent directly by your high school, take the initiative to forward a copy of your semester grade report with a cover letter firmly restating your commitment to attend if admitted—only if that’s truly the case of course—along with as succinct statement as to why you think the college is the best fit for you. Include reference to any new and improved standardized test scores, additional leadership positions, new memberships, recent events or community service activities in which you have been involved, and any special awards you received. Consider sending an additional writing sample or essay. And feel free to add relevant supplementary information such as links to videos or newspaper articles. Remember colleges really only want to know what’s happened since you submitted your original application, so don’t rehash the past. And don’t snow them with paper. Be deliberate in what you send.

5. Consider a campus visit. If you haven’t already spoken with the area representative, try to make an appointment to meet sometime in January or February. This can be an opportunity to make your case for admission face-to-face. If the rep is not available, don’t be discouraged—it’s peak reading season and time is limited. Instead, visit a class, have lunch, and take a closer look at the campus. You may find subtle changes in your feelings about the school that open you to other possibilities.

6. Send another recommendation. If permitted, make arrangements to have another recommendation sent on your behalf. Look for someone who can speak to qualities other than those represented in recommendations the college already received. Consider asking a coach, your employer, a faculty sponsor for one of your membership organizations, or a senior year teacher who has gotten a chance to get to know you. Do not flood the admissions office with hundreds of additional recommendations. This won’t help.

7. Try retesting. If test scores appear to be a barrier to admission, try retaking either the SAT (January) or the ACT (February). Who knows? Your scores may improve significantly enough to make a difference in your admissions prospects.

8. Make academics your first priority. Now is the time to reveal your true character by working even harder to improve class standing. Don’t be lured into “senioritis.” Colleges on the fence about your candidacy will be impressed by a continued upward trend in grades.

9. Step-up community or school involvement. This is definitely NOT the time to quit participating in school- or community-based activities. Instead, you should seek out leadership opportunities and have a continued impact on your community. Colleges want to see a commitment to service that doesn’t just end because the paperwork was submitted.

10. Complete scholarship, financial aid and/or honors college applications. Don’t stop now. If the college has supplementary scholarship or honors college applications, make sure they are completed and submitted before deadline. Be aware that completing these documents—especially after a deferral—shows a significant level of continued interest.

11. Talk to your school counselor. Be sure to provide your counselor with the most up-to-date information on additional accomplishments that may be relevant to your application and ask for these accomplishments to be included along with midyear grades. If the college remains your first choice, suggest your counselor make this point somewhere on the form or possibly in a cover letter. In some cases, a call from your counselor to the admissions office will help, particularly if he or she has a strong relationship with the college.

12. Move on. Consider your deferral an opportunity to explore other options, including ED II at another school. It’s hard not to be miserable over a less-than-positive response to all the hard work you’ve put into being the best possible candidate for admission. But once you have done everything possible to persuade the college to admit, turn your attention elsewhere and don’t dwell on the negative. Even with this small detour, remain confident in your prospects.

For a college perspective on deferral, read advice provided by the University of Notre Dame and Tulane University.

This is part one of a two-part series on deferrals. For part two, click here.

Nancy Griesemer is an independent educational consultant and founder of College Explorations LLC. She has written extensively and authoritatively about the college admissions process and related topics since 2009. Never miss one of Nancy’s articles – subscribe to her mailing list below.