Leiter Report vs Admissions Selectivity

[Flossifer]

Is the Leiter Report a good proxy for admissions selectivity? IE, is it really more difficult to get into the programs at Michigan or Pittsburgh than Harvard or Stanford? Or is the overall academic prestige of the institution a better indicator of selectivity?

[Duns Eith]

36 minutes ago, Flossifer said:

Is the Leiter Report a good proxy for admissions selectivity? IE, is it really more difficult to get into the programs at Michigan or Pittsburgh than Harvard or Stanford? Or is the overall academic prestige of the institution a better indicator of selectivity?

It definitely trends that way, but I have heard of people being turned down from Baylor but being accepted at Brown.

If you want to know selectivity, see that school's FAQ. If you're thinking about acceptance rate (%), or if you're thinking of the "how many do they accept" (#), you might find one stat better information than the other. For example, they might say that they get 250 apps and make offers to 10, with an expected class of 5 or 6.

[maxhgns]

By tier, maybe. By ordinal rank, no. There's a lot of variation between programs, and I suspect selectivity is more closely correlated to program size and the university's overall reputation.

Also note that it doesn't track selectivity at non-American programs very well at all. Oxford, for example, is relatively easy to get into (though not with funding, and there's a massive cull after the BPhil); McGill, however, has very small incoming classes and gets hundreds of applicants, even though it's in the fifties on the international ranking.

[Moose#@1%$]

I would say yes. However, when I was applying to Grad programs, I was accepted at Maryland, KU, Nebraska and wait listed at Pittsburgh and university of Virginia (with an offer eventually from Virginia, but didn't take it, mainly because it was too late)... BUT rejected at university of Oklahoma and university of Colorado and some others. So, not sure what to make of that 

[Flossifer]

Fascinating! It’s strange just how different this process is from applying to undergrad.

[lurkingfaculty]

No, it's not. A couple of things that can affect it: first, location! I used to teach in a department in a desirable east coast city with lots of other universities. My department was very low ranked. We got way, way more applications than we do in my current department (in a less desirable area and much better ranked, but not super elite). Second, coverage/breadth vs. specialization. Some programs are very very strong in a few things, but don't have a lot of breadth. I strongly suspect (though neither of the places I've worked are like this, so I'm not sure) that they get fewer applications than similarly ranked programs that have a lot of coverage of different areas--especially when they are strong in areas that fewer people tend to specialize in as undergraduates.

But, I don't think that's necessarily what explains getting rejected from lower ranked depts and accepted by higher ranked depts; they are concerned about fit, diversity of areas of interest, etc. And also, the most important element of your application--the writing sample--is something about which subjective assessments by admissions committees are going to disagree quite a bit in most cases.