I would greatly appreciate a harsh review of my SoP
Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2020 8:19 pm
Read my SoP and tear me a new one. Mandatory word limit: 1000 words. Thank you.
[deleted]
[deleted]
(This resource is NOT affiliated with gre.org or ets.org)
https://physicsgre.com/
Coming off as a crackpot has been one of my concerns and I'm glad you have validated this as a threat. One of my issues is lack of any formal research. My university seems to be a school primarily for K-12 gym teachers. It's a state school that has no graduate program for physics. I've only ever had 3 physics professors. As far as I know, I am the only one in my "grade"/class (of 2021) in the pre-grad concentration. The program is so small that Physics courses that run once every 2 years max are being cut by the school due to budget issues from the pandemic, so I have to actually take some classes at other universities virtually in the spring just to graduate. I was also under the impression that there was little undergrad level research to be done in theory and I knew I wanted to go into theory since the beginning. I didn't realize that I should or could be researching other things. Everything I've researched was done by my own oblivious desire. I also had some big personal circumstances (medical issues with myself and family) in the past that made free time very difficult for me. I feel like these are all just excuses and excuses aren't worth anything, but my parents were both highschool drop-outs and I just didn't really know anything about college going into it. Sorry for rambling here, I'm just really at a loss.Keep conjectural ideas to a minimum unless it directly relates to research you've done under an advisor or research you're interested in doing with a professor in that area. Even if your ideas are well-founded, you run a strong risk of coming off as a crackpot. Find a better way to get to your point that you want to study spacetime geometry. If you've worked on these ideas with a research advisor, focus on your contributions to the project instead.
I tried to be somewhat broad to make myself more appealing by showing that I am willing to work on topics not exclusively within a super narrow area of interest and also to express that I want to learn more and learning is one of my goals for grad school (obviously).It's great that you have so many interests. Focus on a few, emphasizing the ones that you have the strongest understanding of. Saying "I'm interested in a theory of everything" isn't going to looked on kindly by most admissions committees because nearly everyone in theoretical physics has some passing interest in a theory of everything. If you're interested in gravitational waves, for example, talk about how they relate to your interest in cosmology. There are a lot of people working on gravitational waves who do absolutely nothing with cosmology, and vice versa.
I was considering removing this line. Originally I included it because I wanted to show them that I'm not an expert on string theory by any means and that I want to learn more about it because of that and that I'm not just throwing it in as a buzzword because "WHOA STING THEORY WHOA COOL BIG WORDS!" I have a level of understanding of it but my understanding isn't in depth. I justified this because I felt my potential prospective advisor seemed a bit "contrarian," for lack of a less negative-sounding word, himself.Take out "and, to eliminate or validate my skepticism, string theory," or reword it -- while there are plenty of reasons to be discontented with the current state of string theory, setting yourself up as a contrarian isn't likely to win you much love from the admissions committee. Again, if you have interests in string theory and would like to mention them, connect them to your primary focus on cosmology. String cosmology is a fairly new field, and most string theorists really don't do a lot of cosmology.
.most string theorists really don't do a lot of cosmology
Good idea. I'm not entirely sure how I could specifically tie my past experience and my future goals with coding together, but I'll figure something out before deadlines.If you bring up your programming experience, talk about how it will benefit you as a graduate student. For example, I applied specifically for numerical relativity last year, so I made a point to bring up my experience with debugging, numerical methods, and other things that are essential for the field.
I agree it sounds a bit choppy at this point. Noted.Streamline your essay and focus on your transitions. It sounds corny and is overused, but "tell a story." There should be a smooth, logical progression from topic to topic, all the way from your introduction where you mention your interests to the very end where you state why you're interested in studying at a particular school with a particular professor.
There is no such thing as too harsh. Part of physics is ripping everything that you're confident about to shreds until you come across something too strong to tear.I hope I didn't come off as too harsh. Your statement of purpose is one of the most important parts of your application, particularly in the absence of GRE scores this year, and you'll likely go through many drafts before you settle into something that can form the core for the various statements you'll write for your specific applications.
As another word of advice, there are tons of people doing theoretical cosmology research, but you won't find most schools labeling the degree as "theoretical cosmology." Your best bet is to look in the gravity research groups inside of physics departments and cosmology groups in astronomy departments. If you can specify the general region you're interested in, people on this board can probably guide you to some schools, perhaps including some that you haven't considered.I wish I could express my desire for this school more strongly in my paper. I put a limit on certain locations and then found that most schools do not offer theoretical cosmology doctorates.
Thanks. I'm aware that a lot of the schools all call it something a little bit different or sometimes lump it together with one subfield or another.geekusprimus wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:41 pmAs another word of advice, there are tons of people doing theoretical cosmology research, but you won't find most schools labeling the degree as "theoretical cosmology." Your best bet is to look in the gravity research groups inside of physics departments and cosmology groups in astronomy departments. If you can specify the general region you're interested in, people on this board can probably guide you to some schools, perhaps including some that you haven't considered.I wish I could express my desire for this school more strongly in my paper. I put a limit on certain locations and then found that most schools do not offer theoretical cosmology doctorates.
It's really hit or miss, and it frequently depends on what kind of cosmology they're doing. Stuff like inflational cosmology and particle cosmology tend to be in physics departments, but things like observational cosmology, galaxy formation, and the like will be primarily in astronomy departments. That being said, there is a considerable amount of overlap.I'm a bit confused as to why cosmology seems to inconsistently either fall under astro or not. Is it wrong to assume that usually when catagorized under astronomy it is more observation and experiment based?
These are all good recommendations, with the caveat that schools like Harvard and Princeton are probably beyond reaches given your research experience. That is not a measure of you personally, but reflective of their incredibly large applicant pool. As suggested, you would probably need to get more experience, e.g. through a masters program, to even have a shot. It is great to apply but important to regulate expectations. If you lack formal research experience, getting into Cornell, Penn State, or Maryland, while certainly possible, will require a good deal of luck.geekusprimus wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:44 pmIt's really hit or miss, and it frequently depends on what kind of cosmology they're doing. Stuff like inflational cosmology and particle cosmology tend to be in physics departments, but things like observational cosmology, galaxy formation, and the like will be primarily in astronomy departments. That being said, there is a considerable amount of overlap.I'm a bit confused as to why cosmology seems to inconsistently either fall under astro or not. Is it wrong to assume that usually when catagorized under astronomy it is more observation and experiment based?
If Princeton is on your list and you think you've got a shot, you definitely need to add Harvard and MIT to that bunch. They both have strong cosmology programs, and they're such huge hubs for string theory that I'd be genuinely surprised if they didn't have string cosmologists. Plus, Massachusetts really isn't terribly far from Connecticut.
Inside your actual area, I know as a matter of fact that Penn State also has quite a bit of theoretical cosmology going on in their physics department. The general tenor of the department definitely leans toward loop quantum cosmology (unsurprisingly, as Abhay Ashtekar and Martin Bojowald are faculty there), but there are a couple more conventional cosmologists, and there are also a couple string theorists and particle theorists who may have interests in cosmology, too.
I don't know if any of these schools have theoretical cosmology research up your alley, but I would also take a look at the University of Rochester, Rutgers, the University of Maryland, and Virginia Tech. A couple of those are a little further than you are really interested in, I think, but it wouldn't hurt to look at the research going on inside their physics departments and/or astronomy departments to see if they look interesting. Especially if you don't have a lot of experience, you really want to cast a pretty broad net so you can maximize your shots. You might also consider applying to some postbacc programs and some master's programs to help you build some research credentials.