skeebaloo

Sure, here you go. I took screenshots of them earlier while it was still up. I uploaded it to imgur, you can click between the three essay prompts at the top where it says "first image, second image, third image"

Good luck writing all 3 essays in the next 20 hours!

http://imgur.com/kIh...O&LL2n1&97yba#0

Awesome additions guys! I've added a few and incorporated Pitangus' suggestion to divide these up for easier reading. I kept the personal statement and research experience together because there's some overlap in how you want to handle them.

INTELLECTUAL MERIT
- PROPOSAL
-- whether proposal has a clear hypothesis/question it is trying to address
-- whether proposal is novel/innovative
-- whether proposal is original (your own)
-- whether proposal is transformative (rare)
-- whether proposal is well-written
-- whether access to resources is addressed in proposal
-- whether expected results are addressed in proposal
-- whether validation of results are addressed in proposal
-- whether proposal is sufficiently detailed (this is a tough one... too detailed and it might not be well-written/clear and have no room for other objectives)
-- interest of proposal among scientists
-- relation of research to theories of founders/experts in the field
-- relation to previous work the applicant discusses in other essays/supporting material
-- whether the outcome measure is well-related or "distal" to the intervention (likely more of an issue in social sciences)
- PERSONAL STATEMENT/RESEARCH EXPERIENCE/SUPPORTING MATERIAL
-- strength of academic record
-- research capabilities, independent and in team
-- publications (includes submitted/in review articles, especially if you don't have other pubs yet)
-- presentations (includes talks and posters)
-- participating in any other funded proposals (e.g. help writing grants)
-- leadership potential of applicant, including personal qualities such as persistence and drive
-- previous research essay draws connections among past projects and internships, and explains their significance (both personal + BIs)
- ALL
* strength of recommendation letters and what they say about all of the the above (including proposal if applicable)

BROADER IMPACTS
- PROPOSAL
-- whether proposal integrates/supports science education with research
-- whether proposal integrates broadening diversity with research
-- whether proposal benefits society or some large group outside major field
-- potential of research to support "citizen science"
-- applicant's plan to disseminate results broadly, especially with non-science stakeholders if applicable, but further too
- PERSONAL STATEMENT/RESEARCH EXPERIENCE/SUPPORTING MATERIAL
-- benefits to society, education or diversity in all past research projects
-- applicant's activities to increase science education and recruit young scientists
-- applicant's activities to broaden diversity in science
-- applicant's leadership roles in broader impacts activities (including TAing)
-- quantity of applicant's BI activites (e.g. reviewer lists lots of examples or length of time)
-- applicant's plan to -continue- broader impacts activities
-- "unique perspective" due to unusual life circumstances which gives applicant insight into the needs of underserved communities
- ALL
* specifics for BI activities in all sources
* strength of recommendation letters and what they say about all of the the above

@Dynamom: Maybe next year's thread's kickoff should be a group mining expedition of all the previous threads. I read them all at some point (including all 170+ pages of the year-less one) and incorporated trends but didn't write the information down back in November when I probably should have.

If you measure prestige in selectiveness and amount of money then NDSEG is the "better" award.

NDSEG
~200 awards, ~10% admit rate (http://ndseg.asee.or...the_application), and actually, for your field (Chemistry) the admit rate looks to be more like 6% (http://ndseg.asee.or...award_selection)
Tuition: Full for 3 years
Stipend: $30,500+$31,000+$31,500

NSF
~2000 awards, ~15% admit rate (www.wpi.edu/academics/FS/nsf.pdf)
Tuition: $12,000 tuition/yr for 3 years
Stipend: $30,000/yr stipend for 3 years

Obviously, it's an honor to get either, so congratulations!

EDIT:

This post from last year has a better-explained breakdown of the differences between the two. Bottom line: it'll depend on the funding structure of your program, your particular field of study, and your own preferences.

I found this Reviewer's Guide to be the most informative in regards to the scoring process (at least as it was in 2008):
http://www.soest.haw...fo_NSF_GRFP.pdf
**thanks to vertices for posting it earlier in the thread**

Starting on page 11, it shows the numerical rating scale behind the E,VG,G,F,P ratings that we applicants get to see.
It also explains the standardized scoring (z-scores) that is supposed to combat the effects of varying reviewer difficulty (pg 13).

According to this guide, applicants were divided into 4 "quality groups:"
Applicants in Group 1 are all awarded fellowships
Applicants in Group 2 "receive awards to the limit of funds available using criteria such as geographical region, discipline, and other factors" (pg 16); the rest receive HMs
Applicants in Group 3 get HMs
Applicants in Group 4 do not get awards or HMs (this group includes applications that were below the 65th percentile after two ratings and were retired before the third rating).

From what I read it seems, in 2008, applicants were ranked and placed into the quality groups according to their z-score averages, but the panels of reviewers were able to deliberate and change ranks without changing scores (pg 14). So there is definitely some mystery surrounding the deliberation aspect of the rankings.
Plus, once the rankings are submitted, who knows what "other factors" the NSF uses to give additional awards to applicants in Group 2.

I think the combination of z-scores (which applicants don't see) and the reviewing panel's ability to change the rankings after scoring helps explain why the feedback we get (just the letter ratings and some comments) is often not helpful in determining why we did/didn't get an award/HM.

Edit: Jimbo's comment above coincides with this as well; I agree it would be nice to get at least the z-scores.

Looking at other people's reviews, this whole process seems even more arbitrary. I got E/E VG/VG VG/E which resulted in an HM. None of the comments said anything even remotely negative. I see other people in my discipline with equivlaent or even worse responses. I guess things like high school location, gender, and difficulty of reviewer really matters a lot.

Since some people have asked about whether it is worth applying in your 2nd year if you didn't get an HM your 1st year, I thought I'd post my reviews.

Last year: No award or HM (IM/BI)
VG/F
G/VG
Reviewer 1 basically asked me to explain my techniques more in my proposal (If only there were the space!) and then said that I wasn't specific enough in my BI. Reviewer 2 docked me for not discussing my controls or alternative hypotheses (again, space!) but was pretty generous on BI. But that Fair from reviewer 1 really was the bee under my bonnet that got me rewriting my essays right away (because frankly, I am totally the type of person that dedicates a lot of energy to BI activities and I was dismayed that that didn't come across in my original essays).

This year: Award (IM/BI)
E/E
G/E
E/E
Reviewer 1 called my academic background outstanding and said that I come with the highest recommendations of my mentors. Reviewer 1 also lauded the specificity of my BI. Reviewer 2 got into the details of my proposed research and said it was an interesting idea but that I don't have the key evidence to support my hypothesis yet (totally agreed, it is my "risky" project, but also the one that I'm most excited about, which is why I wrote about it for the NSF). Reviewer 2 wrote my favorite comment in BI saying, "Sometimes an applicant has come to appreciate the value of outreach almost naturally. This applicant seems to be such a candidate - maybe partly due to a family situation, but I sense mostly because applicant truly sees the value of outreach and the importance of having a broader impact. In such situations the individual continues the ’give-back’ in various, and numerous, ways." Reviewer 3 said that I would benefit from more opportunities to present my research at symposia and conferences (also, totally agreed, but my PI seems to think that any time away from the bench is essentially "vacation" so I have a hard time convincing him to let me leave, even for something scientific. Maybe now that I have my own funding (including travel funds) I can make a more compelling argument ). Reviewer 3 mentioned my global awareness and outreach.

Still feels like I'm dreaming but I guess a lot of fellows probably feel like that. To those that didn't get it this year, good luck in the years to come!

Reviews (at least mine) are up!!!, even though they're still not *officially* linked when you log in.
https://www.fastlane...hod=loadApplRev

I found this link after browsing last year's thread:

As as 2nd year grad student who also applied last year with nothing, and an offer now, I agree. My reviewers last year were actually quite constructive with their criticisms and positive with comments. They basically dinged me on Broader Impacts. I'd say the two things I really beefed up in my essays were: (1) Broader Impacts. I literally had a section of broader impacts in each of the three essays. While in the PS and previous research essays, I didn't label "Broader Impacts", they were definitely there ... they probably made up at least 1/3 of each essay. (2) I increased the methodology section of my research statement. I listed each one step by step with numbers.

I'd have to say that readers really like things organized and labeled with clearly defined sections. But also, every year is a crapshoot with the reviewers. Two folks may like your app, then a third really hates it. I got that with EPA STAR last year. One guy put my app in the top 10%, another was like, "this isn't a problem anymore". Keep applying! It never hurts!

Not that it's too important, but for future years, the rejection email was titled:
2012 NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program Notification

Honorable Mention.
What were those "it'll be ok" mantras again?
Oh yeah:
1 more year left to apply (know what I'll be doing this summer)
I'm in an MA program, at least I can put HM on my doctoral program apps
With more time in school, I've developed new interests - now I can write a proposal more in line with my thesis
I'll be more competitive next year - my grad school GPA is way better than my undergrad GPA (yay sobriety), plus I've got a publication and 2 presentations under my belt
I now have grad school professors to get refs from

Maybe next year is the year I can walk out of my job with middle fingers extended.
For now, I can say that getting the HM gives me a lot more confidence to keep going in my grad career and apply to doctoral programs.

It's up?!

IT IS

https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/grfp/AwardeeList.do?method=loadAwardeeList

This is absolutely untrue.

From a fluid mechanician's point of view, your graph looks like the result of a statistically stationary random process, the mean is sufficient.

While it does appear that the advance warning of Fastlane being down is a reliable indicator for when the results are released, March 18th seems a bit early. Going back a few years, only 2007 was released in March. (I pulled these dates off previous gradcafe forums, let me know if they're wrong)

2007- Friday, March 23
2008- Tuesday, April 1 (Results were apparently accidently released\hacked the day before)
2009- Friday, April 10th
2010- Tuesday, April 6th
2011- Tuesday, April 5th

So March 18th would be the earliest its been released in awhile, but that will not stop me compulsively checking Fastlane early Monday morning.

Perhaps this has happened before, do we know if the "Fastlane will be down" advance notice on the website around late March\early April always means the announcement will come?

Direct quote from the NSFGRFP website:



Do people even read these things anymore???

Some insight to the process:

One of my advisors flew out to DC in January for 4 days to review applications. Each day he spent about 5 hours grading applications (around 20 each day). Then he had a 1 hour break and had to go back to a meeting where every rater in his 5-6 person "group" sat together with the group leader and discussed every application that was rated high (around 50 each day). The groups made no final decisions.

Apparently the raters just give the ratings. My advisor has the feeling that his only role was to ID the good applications and weed out the bad ones so that higher level raters could read the good applications and make final decisions.