Top-notch mathematical physicists at mediocre schools?

[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?