Concerned About My SOP For Physics PhD Admission

[McCoy13]

I've just drafted a statement of purpose for one of the schools I'm planning on applying to this winter. I have an average GPA for a prospective grad student, and my PGRE score isn't bad but doesn't impress, so I'm hoping to make up some points on my SOP and letters of recommendation. I'd really appreciate some feedback on what I've written. I plan to give it to my recommenders to look at as well, but I want some broader feedback if I can get it.

Here are my main concerns:
-I feel like my discussion of my research is perhaps too tightly packed if no one on the admissions committee is familiar with that sort of research

-I mention possibility for collaboration with faculty outside the department being a plus, but since admissions are capped, indicating in the slightest that I may be interested in anything going on outside the department may hurt me

-I also have a lot of experience with tutoring, grading, and being a TA, which I feel would be valuable to mention if that's how I have to support myself. I mention it in passing towards the end of the SOP. Should I bring this more to the forefront?

Thanks, and here's the SOP:

Biological systems present a rich set of nonlinear and chaotic behavior, giving the highly collaborative theoretical and experimental efforts in biophysics at <University> special appeal for me. Not only do biological systems tend to present the pattern formation and instabilities typical of my interests, but these phenomena are critical to the system itself, providing immediate motivation and application for the ideas being explored.

This summer I conducted experiments and performed theoretical calculations studying the propagation of reactions in laminar fluid flows. These flows are especially pertinent to cellular life, since the length scales typically involved within cells and their environment prohibit turbulence. We characterized barriers to front propagation called burning invariant manifolds, which are closely related to the invariant manifolds that acts as barriers to mixing of inert impurities. By measuring the velocity field of a magnetohydrodynamically forced Belousov-Zhabotinsky (BZ) reaction, we were able to successfully predict from theory the location and extent of such manifolds. We verified these predictions by triggering the excitable BZ reaction and then using image processing techniques to extract structures where the reaction front would stop propagating forward. This work continues as my advisor, <redacted> , and I make attempts to extend the theory of burning invariant manifolds in analogy with the extension of the theory of invariant manifolds into Lagrangian coherent structures.

In visiting with <Faculty A> at <University> in August, I was particularly excited by his experiments with dicty. His ability to visualize the signaling chemical between dicty in particular presents an exciting research opportunity given my experience with the BZ reaction, which presents the same reaction-diffusion pattern generation as dicty. Given my research exploring the relationship between mixing and reaction dynamics, working with a living system exhibiting reaction-diffusion type behavior would be an exciting opportunity to examine how the physical dynamics of an animate system compares to an analogous inanimate system. I imagine my work could similarly serve as a theoretical springboard into the work of <Faculty B>, since each reaction front element in our fluid flows was characterized as a sort of ``swimmer" in the mathematical formalism. This similarity could help me quickly gain insight into the collective behavior of organisms in <Faculty B>'s microfluidic environments.

Outside of my research, I have sought out opportunities to extend my understanding of topics in nonlinear dynamics and chaos. I have independently read Gollub and Baker's \emph{Chaotic Dynamics} and have started Strogatz's \emph{Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos}. This semester I've also completed a graduate level classical mechanics course and attended the lectures of a fluid dynamics course to learn more about the subject in a more formal environment. I have also pursued a strong mathematical background, taking on a double degree program in physics and math. In particular, this semester I also took a course in dynamics and chaos from the math department (taught by <redacted>, traditionally taught by <redacted>).

Given my strong background in math, independent study in my particular field, and research experience, I feel comfortable and have a strong drive to approach physics problems from both a theoretical and experimental approach. I believe that strong theoretical understanding is critical to good experiment, especially if one is conducting experiments to explore poorly understood phenomena. Good theoretical intuition and good experimental intuition are then closely linked, since one must recognize the critical and non-critical elements of the dynamics in the experiment. Since I have a desire to work on problems with both approached, I would prefer to ultimately enter a lab, as it is much easier to work on theory if one has an experiment in a lab than it is to work on an experiment if one has no lab.

<University> offers a genuinely exciting academic environment that I feel I could thrive in. In addition to the faculty I've mentioned already, the work of <Faculty C> and collaborative resources that would be available to me through <University>'s condensed matter and microfluidics communities or with theorists like <Faculty D>. However, <University> offers more to me, with its proximity to <Large City A> and <Large City B> I would also imagine I'd have easy access to conferences and other opportunities afforded by such large cities.

<University> could also be ideal as an outlet for my other creative interests, such as music and poetry. These other passions have actually informed my study of physics, not only highlighting the important relationship between experiment, theory, and creativity, but also leading me to independently take on and manage projects. I have recorded, packaged, and distributed CDs; written, constructed, and distributed books; and have served as Editor-in-Chief for <Undergrad University>'s undergraduate literary journal. These projects have taught me lessons concerning responsibility and management in independently guided work that I feel would be valuable in my graduate education.

With such abundance of academic opportunity at <University>, I am very excited to be applying for a chance to work with this faculty. I hope to carry on my studies at <University> and develop my expertise in nonlinear dynamics and chaos, particularly with an eye towards biological systems. I am confident I could capitalize on such an education to find success in my ultimate goal of attaining a faculty position at a university where I could bring the research activities that have excited me so much closer to the classroom, showing students the close marriage of technical details and creative scientific exploration that has driven me towards my studies. I have also done substantial work towards these education-driven goals, holding positions as a tutor, grader, and learning assistant, as well as being involved with the Physics Education Research Group at <Undergrad University> and their efforts in curriculum reform for introductory physics courses for biology majors.

 

[twofish-quant]

I've just drafted a statement of purpose for one of the schools I'm planning on applying to this winter

This is one of the better SOP's that I've seen.

-I feel like my discussion of my research is perhaps too tightly packed if no one on the admissions committee is familiar with that sort of research

That's a good thing. If you have experience in some research that they aren't familiar with, that's a reason to admit you.

I mention possibility for collaboration with faculty outside the department being a plus, but since admissions are capped, indicating in the slightest that I may be interested in anything going on outside the department may hurt me

I don't think it will. Profs are always collaborating.

I also have a lot of experience with tutoring, grading, and being a TA, which I feel would be valuable to mention if that's how I have to support myself. I mention it in passing towards the end of the SOP. Should I bring this more to the forefront?

Probably not, since they are mainly concerned with research.

The things that I would remove...

1) The second paragraph from the bottom about outside interests isn't relevant, and you can get rid of it.

2) The fourth paragraph doesn't seem to say anything. So you can get rid of it. One thing about SOP's is that you should talk about yourself and talk about the university and talk about how they match. General statements about the nature of research aren't useful and you can remove them.

 

[McCoy13]

The things that I would remove...

2) The fourth paragraph doesn't seem to say anything. So you can get rid of it. One thing about SOP's is that you should talk about yourself and talk about the university and talk about how they match. General statements about the nature of research aren't useful and you can remove them.

Thanks for your feedback. I think I agree with removing the penultimate paragraph, although their prompt specifically asked about traits/interests/talents/skills that make us believe we'd be good physicists. I the way of skills, I've also worked extensively with computer hardware and done some carpentry. I could imagine these kinds of skills coming handy for modifying experimental apparati or if I need to do work in a machine shop. Do you think that'd be worth mentioning?

As for what is quoted above, I just wanted to clarify if you meant the fourth paragraph (where I talk about texts I've read, classes I'm taking, etc.) or the fifth paragraph (where I discuss my interest in theoretical vs. experimental work, and as you put it, the nature of research). Again, the prompt specifically asks about background we've had outside of the usual physics & math curriculum, and whether we're primarily interested in experimental or theoretical work, so I think these points have their place, though maybe could be trimmed down.

 

[twofish-quant]

I the way of skills, I've also worked extensively with computer hardware and done some carpentry. I could imagine these kinds of skills coming handy for modifying experimental apparati or if I need to do work in a machine shop. Do you think that'd be worth mentioning?

Absolutely. The important thing is to be specific. Don't say "I've done carpentry." Say "I've spend much of my time in a machine shop and I've built violins, or I've done microcontroller programing on 6502 and built my own robot."

Again, the prompt specifically asks about background we've had outside of the usual physics & math curriculum, and whether we're primarily interested in experimental or theoretical work, so I think these points have their place, though maybe could be trimmed down.

That makes a difference. If they specifically asked for this then put the literary journal editor back in.

 

[hadsed]

2) The fourth paragraph doesn't seem to say anything. So you can get rid of it. One thing about SOP's is that you should talk about yourself and talk about the university and talk about how they match. General statements about the nature of research aren't useful and you can remove them.

I noticed that his fourth paragraph highlighted some of the topics he's done for self-study. Now my question is that, since I go to a school with an extremely limited number of physics courses (plus the scholarship I'm under only allows certain number of hours), shouldn't there be something said to show that the supposed 'knowledge gap' between a student like me and another from a school with a better physics department is filled? I would imagine there are lots of people with this predicament. I always thought that when grad apps time came for me, I would write in my SOP that I'd done this or that, studied quantum field theory and GR and numerical analysis, even though I have about 6 upper level physics courses on my transcript.

Maybe you might say that PhD acceptance committees simply don't hold transcripts in too high regard. I'd say, in that case, that it could be sort of like the GRE; they may nod their heads and move on if you made an 850, but if you're down in the dumps it could have a significant impact. That's my concern, for the transcript.

(OP sorry for the hijacking, I thought it was related and would be helpful to others as well.)

 

[twofish-quant]

I always thought that when grad apps time came for me, I would write in my SOP that I'd done this or that, studied quantum field theory and GR and numerical analysis, even though I have about 6 upper level physics courses on my transcript.

The problem is that if you just say that you self-studied, the admissions committee has no real idea what you did and how well you did it. You need to figure out some way of demonstrating that you really learned something useful. Also, it will work better if you have your recommendation letters mention what you studied (i.e. so-and-so wrote me a report on GR, and I thought it was very good). If all else fails, it's important to mention the books that you read. I taught myself QFT is less credible than I finish reading Zee's Introduction to Quantum Field Theory and I can do the problems at the end of chapter 3.

The other thing that will help is if you can get something on a transcript. If you can have 3 credits of independent study, and then mention that what you did, that will help.

Also, be careful not to claim something that looks too extraordinary. If you write that you wrote some simple monte carlo programs to teach yourself numerical analysis, that is credible. If you write that you taught yourself string theory, people won't believe you. If it happens to be true, you are going to have to figure out a way of proving that it happened.

The other thing is that if the physics courses are limited, that is something that you should try to make sure is mentioned in the recommendation letters.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I've just drafted a statement of purpose for one of the schools I'm planning on applying to this winter. I have an average GPA for a prospective grad student, and my PGRE score isn't bad but doesn't impress, so I'm hoping to make up some points on my SOP and letters of recommendation. I'd really appreciate some feedback on what I've written.

Not a bad first draft- there's a lot that I liked. Some comments from the point of view of someone who reads these:

1) You don't say why you want to go to graduate school in the first place- or rather, why you want to pursue graduate studies in Biological Physics. What do you hope to do after you graduate? The Department invests in their students (education is a money loser)- what can you offer them? Don't be shy- you are selling yourself.

2) I would be very careful about the next-to-last paragraph. That could be read as "I don't know what I want to do with my life and want to hide in school for a few more years".

3) I would definitely discuss experience tutoring etc., but from the perspective that you can balance/manage your time and work efficiently.

4) you discuss the relationship between theory and experiment, but you don't mention anything experimental that you did. How can you justify the claims you make in paragraph 5?

Good luck!