Monochrome Spring

I think (and I could be wrong) that schools like to get an idea of what other programs their students are applying to. It gives them a good comparison of how they might want to recruit different students applying to other programs. I think it's the same for when programs you reject ask you where you accepted. They want to know the competition.

I don't mean getting the professor into trouble. If she has an injury, then her absence is excused. I mean getting someone to cover who, like you said, maybe has time to prepare the class or has taught the class before. Talk to her before talking to a director, but a director could help you find someone who can take your place as instructor.

It depends. I think it can be very useful to have experience in the field you want to pursue in graduate school, not only because you'll understand the materials when you arrive, but also because it shows the admissions committee that you have done work in the field already. However, I don't think that it will hurt you too much, if at all. If you have a thorough background in similar areas, you still have shown that you have the skills to survive in research. In your essays, or in conversations with professors in the departments, you may want to mention your reviews of literature in the field and discuss potential projects in cancer biology, even if you never actually do the projects.

Talk to someone at the head of the department. It is your job to be an assistant, not a professor.

Those count. And you quantified them just fine. You've been doing research since October 2011. You don't need to do anything as fancy as multiply hours by days etc. Your applications might ask you to list each research experience and the dates through which you participated. The way you listed it is just fine.

Laboratory classes are not considered research experience. Research experience is doing novel research in a laboratory group (not a course) most often run by a professor who is the PI. When applicants say that they have done 2 years of research, that just means that they have been working on research in these lab groups for 2 years. The time they spend doing research each week could be anywhere from 10-40+ hours per week, depending on their course load and and other commitments. For example, I have 2 years of research experience. April-June 2012 in lab group #1- I was an assistant on a genetics study. I took care of the plants in the greenhouse for a graduate student. Approx. 5hrs/wk/ April-August 2012 in lab group #2 - I was an assistant on a cell biology study. I ran PCR and gels, and measured traits of seedlings, for a graduate student. Approx. 10hrs/wk. August 2012-present in lab group #3 - I am an undergraduate researcher. I used to help on the postdoc's research projects, taking care of greenhouse plants. Now I am working on an independent literature review. Approx. 10-20hrs/wk during the school year and 20-40hrs/wk during the summer. August 2013-present in lab group #4 - I am an undergraduate researcher for my senior honors thesis. I have to independently review the literature and am at a field station collecting data. Approx. 10hrs/wk during the school year and 50hrs/wk for two weeks during field season. None of those experiences are laboratory courses. I could even argue that my first lab group wasn't even research since I only took care of the plants in the greenhouse, which is the same type of work I did when I volunteered at the Arboretum. Do you have any experience outside of your required coursework in which you helped a graduate student or professor conduct novel research with the goal of confirming a hypothesis?

I'm almost certain that they don't have any application materials from prior years. even if they did, they would not want to read through them, given the time constraints.

Eigen was stating that there are other factors to consider, other than the reviewer heterogeneity, since that seems to be what most of the posters in this thread lament about. It is expected that you should have more research experience (and possibly more publications and conferences), as well as more outreach, with each year. Therefore, an application that you submitted last year, which would only list your experiences from then, will not be as competitive as someone's application that discusses new research and outreach experiences. It's not to say that this increase in difficulty is the only reason for changes in reviews from year-to-years, but it can be a factor.

Also, what? Your research proposal and personal statement should both include details on broader impacts. There is not one essay which gets all of your broader impacts information.

You say you were an undergraduate at UC Davis, where I'm assuming you feel like you were discriminated against for extra time on exams because of your dyslexia. I can tell you that you're wrong in this regard. I don't know about any other schools that you attended, but UC Davis is ridiculously accommodating of anyone with a disability, so any lack of extra time on an exam would be your fault for not filling out the necessary forms. All professors are required to give you extra time on exams if you have filled out the forms and are held to this standard. I have not heard of a single student not getting the extra time that they need at UC Davis. Also, maybe you should focus more in your applications on your ability to lead and research experience. Yes, you got poor grades that may or may have not been due to a disability. But that doesn't mean that you need to drag on about that in your essays. One or two sentences will do. Also, I highly doubt that you're being discriminated against for dyslexia in the GRF review process. Focus on where else your application was weak and stop dragging on about this issue.

Congratulations again to everyone who accepted a program, especially if you got funding!

I was accepted in February and just got my official acceptance materials two days ago. I'm out of country until Monday, however, so I can't use the codes in the physical copy that got delivered to my home to be officially admitted and register. It was (and still is) frustrating. Ask the department if they can send you your registration information so that you can move forward in the process, even if their letters take longer to arrive.

The support may be contingent upon your enrollment during the time that the award is distributed. You can apply for funding while you apply to graduate programs, but you must be enrolled at a graduate program in order to receive the award.

I don't recall saying that I despise NSF because of my reviews.

A lot of it is also in the lack of feedback that can actually be used for improvement. When reviewers consistently say "great outreach", "good broader impacts", etc. but they vary from E to G and there is nothing about improving to go beyond the lower scores, it makes you wonder what you're doing wrong or what you can improve. This is not positive feedback. This is an empty comment that doesn't help with improvement or explain the differences in scoring. Yes, it's good to get feedback when a lot of applications don't give it to you, blah, blah, blah. A lot of my feedback was very helpful. But there are other applicants who only got the vague responses like I stated above but get varying scores without any notes for improvement.

Nada. Undergraduate. E/VG Reviewer acknowledged that I had worked closely with my POI to write the research proposal and that I have a lot of outreach. G/VG Reviewer noted several research conferences and a manuscript in preparation, then says that my research proposal is vague (tell that to review#1) Acknowledged that I have a lot of outreach. VG/G Reviewer noted lack of field experience, which makes sense for my application at the time, but I wish he could see me at the largest field station in Central America now (sigh). Acknowledged that I have a lot of outreach, but gave no indication as to why this score is lower than the other reviewers'. The best confusing line of the review was: "Her academic record is biology is good, but it is stronger than her record in other scientific disciplines." At the time of application, I had no grades below a B and all grades toward my specific subfield were A/A+. Is it bad now to be better in biology when you're a biologist? I think that I got some odd reviewers, although it could have been worse. With more field experience this year, I'll strengthen IM, although I'm maxed out on BI regardless of what they say. I'm guessing an HM or award next year.

lalala. What are you guys doing to pass the time?

Too far, bro.

Who is our neurotic page refresher who will let us know exactly when the results are up?

When you get your results, please list something like: Award status: Honorable mention Scores: G/VG VG/E VG/VG

I did twice as much field work today, just so that I don't have to do any tomorrow.

If you do field work, there is bound to be funding through your field station and through the major journals in your area of study.

Who is staying awake until results come out?

255 users are reading this topic. Not enough.