Top-notch mathematical physicists at mediocre schools?

[sokrates]

It doesn't because if you have a lousy SOP, then you are going to be at a huge disadvantage.

No you wouldn't because nobody would even read your lousy SOP, if you had an otherwise great application.

Because you can't easily rank people based on how bad they want to be a physicist, or what they "hope to accomplish" in the future.

On the other hand you can easily make a list of 15 applicants based on papers, scores, and letters. This is very obvious. Committees don't have all the time in the world to sympathize with the applicant's wishes and purposes.

 

[twofish-quant]

Because you can't easily rank people based on how bad they want to be a physicist, or what they "hope to accomplish" in the future.

So that's why you shouldn't put any of that crap in your statement of purpose. The reason that a great statement of purpose will help you a lot is because most people write truly awful ones. What you want in a good SOP is to state 1) the research program that you have and 2) how your experience and goals will concretely fit the research program of the school that you are applying to. Why *ARE* you applying to MIT?

Cut the "I really want to be a physicist" nonsense.

Committees don't have all the time in the world to sympathize with the applicant's wishes and purposes.

So again, don't put any of that "cliche" "I'm passionate about being a physicist" crap in your SOP. Putting that sort of nonsense in is why most of them are dreadful. If you have ten people with crap SOP's that say the same thing, then of course you are going to be ranked on something else, but if you have a *good* SOP, that can trump an awful lot.

The most important criteria that will help you get into graduate school is the quality of any undergraduate research that you've had, the quality of your recommendation letters, and the quality of your coursework. The problem here is that most graduate applications do not have the space for you to talk about your research and your recommenders, and *that's* what you need to put in your SOP. If you don't explain what you did in your undergraduate research and why in you SOP, the committee is not going to be able to guess it from the rest of your application.

 

[sokrates]

Going back to the original question posed by OP:

Writing a good SOP is probably important as it's an element of the application process, PROVIDED that you have all the other ESSENTIALS.

I think the OP has figured out himself that his credentials are not very competitive and is asking for advice.

My advice is, as I said before, don't underrate yourself because you have an M.S degree, and if you did research these are big pluses. But don't overrate yourself either by devising the best SOP possible, hoping that it'll take care of the job for you.

From my personal experience (a brief look into the inner workings of an admission committee of a competitive school and years of experience as a student) a SOP is decisive ONLY when it compares otherwise equal applicants, with close tests, gpas, letters and publications.

Faculty research as twofish-quant suggests is VERY important, not that I think it'll improve your chances of getting in, but were you admitted, it will make your life easier and prevent a lot of headache.

I had to change my advisor two years into my PhD and I learned this the hard way.

Edit: and remember to talk to people...Don't rate your application yourself. There's nothing wrong with e-mailing graduate program heads, or individual faculty about advice on whether to apply or not. More often than not, they provide valuable feedback on how to proceed. If you are unsure about the school you are applying, you should certainly contact someone from that school before you decide to apply.

Good luck!

 

[Martin_G]

"A lot of my information comes from this talk that the head of the admissions committee gave about what MIT is looking for..."

That explains your unrealistic over-emphasis on the SoP. Admissions committee members are as truthful as politicians when they talk to the public. They all sound the same ("we are looking for the whole package" type of bunk) and they're all giving misleading information on how things get done. Remember: more applications mean more money in application fees and lower acceptance rates, which count a lot in rankings. So, their interest lies in encouraging more applications, no matter how improbable it is that the applicant will be accepted.

 

[twofish-quant]

From my personal experience (a brief look into the inner workings of an admission committee of a competitive school and years of experience as a student) a SOP is decisive ONLY when it compares otherwise equal applicants, with close tests, gpas, letters and publications.

My experience is that the most important thing in getting into graduate school is a track record of good undergraduate research and coursework. The reason that SOP becomes important is that it's the only part of the application where you have a chance to talk about any undergraduate research and coursework that you've done. If you have good recommendation letters the committee will know about the research from the letter, but the trouble is that you cannot count on the professor to mention the research that you did.

If you have demonstrated undergraduate research, that trumps tests and gpas. If you have a lower GPA, but your courses are in differential topology and general relativity, this needs to be pointed out in the SOP. They *might* figure it out from the transcript, but the SOP let's you put that fact front and center.

The reason I think that the SOP is so important is because it's the only real chance that you have to explain yourself, and most applicants waste it.

 

[twofish-quant]

Admissions committee members are as truthful as politicians when they talk to the public.

The had no particular reason to lie to me about this. One rule of MIT physics graduate school is that they don't generally accept MIT undergrads, and having lots of MIT undergrads applying for Ph.D. programs, and not making it in is not in their interest.

Also undergraduate admissions is *VERY* different from graduate school admissions.

One final thing is that one important part of your graduate school education is how to game the system, and to develop political and finance skills.

One reason that people from some schools do better is that they are better at working the system. There's something of a "Harvard mafia" in astrophysics, but that's not necessarily a bad thing since so many department chairs and tenured faculty in midwestern schools are members of the Harvard mafia that they'll pull you in.

If you end up a member of the club, no one will care what school you went to, and it's not hard to join the club.

They all sound the same ("we are looking for the whole package" type of bunk) and they're all giving misleading information on how things get done. Remember: more applications mean more money in application fees and lower acceptance rates, which count a lot in rankings.

Application fees are pretty insignficant, and for Ph.D.'s acceptance rates aren't that important. In any event, if you look at the AIP list of astronomy and physics graduate schools, it can be pretty surprising what schools are most difficult to get into. They aren't the one's you think you are.

So, their interest lies in encouraging more applications, no matter how improbable it is that the applicant will be accepted.

So besides losing a trivial amount of money, how does applying hurt you?