Hopefulforthefulbright

Called my FPA today, she said, as legallyproper's said, that we will know by the end of the day on the 18th whether were recommended or not. She asked me if I had received an email or not. Wonder what that means. Applying to Netherlands, by the way, full grant.

Amen! And a Hallelujah, too.

6 Days 'Till Lift Off!

@ Ruluo I didn't notice that! Seems to be used as one factor, among many factors (including geographic distribution, like in the link @lls1 posted) in the application process. This is also from the state department website: "The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the United States Department of State strives to ensure that all programs conducted under its mandate reflect the diversity of the intended audiences. The Bureau aggressively seeks and actively encourages the involvement of U.S. and international participants from traditionally under-represented audiences in all its grants, programs and other activities. These audiences include, but are not limited to women, persons belonging to racial and ethnic minorities, persons living in underserved geographic locations, persons belonging to religious minorities, persons of lower socio-economic status and persons with disabilities. We seek fairness, equity and inclusion." Being from Kansas, or something, may be a factor, just as being from a traditionally under-represented group. It seems like it's all weighed.

Hi! New to the forum, but long time lurker--hoping for the results to come thursday Jan. 17th. I come baring gifts, a little information on how the selection committee works from a fulbright newsletter directed at advisors. INSIGHTS FROM OBSERVING A FULBRIGHT NATIONAL SCREENING COMMITTEE by Christina M. McIntyre, Associate Director, University Honors, Fulbright Program Adviser, Virginia Tech Christina M. McIntyre, Associate Director, University Honors, Fulbright Program Adviser, Virginia Tech This is my account of observing a National Screening Committee (NSC) for the Fulbright U.S. Student Program. First off, I’d highly encourage FPAs to observe an NSC if you haven’t done so before. I was immediately impressed with the effort, energy and concern that the committee members took both in preparations for the meeting and the day long discussion to select the finalists. The committee was comprised of three university faculty who had research and travel experience to the country or region being reviewed, and a Fulbright staff member from the Institute of International Education (IIE) facilitated the meeting. The day started at 9:00 a.m. with a verbal confirmation of the committee scores for all of the candidates. While these scores had been entered online, this step was a good check to confirm scores and catch any errors. An Excel spreadsheet was generated with the scores tallied. For example: 1.5 + 2.0 + 2.5 = 6.0; the lower the score, the better. The committee proceeded to discuss the candidates who had large differences in their scores among committee members (e.g., 1.5, 2.0 and 3.5). Some of these discussions resulted in committee members adjusting their individual scores. These discussions took the entire morning. At one point, I was excused from the room because a candidate from my university was being discussed. I was impressed with the committee’s acknowledgement of their bias and their attempt not to let their individual disciplines or interests influence their decisions. The charge for the afternoon was to identify ten candidates whose applications would be sent on to a committee in the country to which the candidates had applied. In addition, these selected candidates were to be ranked (1 – 10). The first two selected candidates, ranked #1 and #2, were straightforward based on scores. Candidates ranked #3 - #6 all had a tally score of 5.0 and the committee discussed these candidates to sort them into ranked order. The majority of the afternoon was spent selecting the final four candidates ranked #7 - #10. There were twelve candidates with the same score of 5.5 and only four spots available. The committee identified candidates who had been previously discussed that morning and focused their conversation on those who had not yet been discussed. The aim was to eliminate candidates based on identifying weaknesses, and the feasibility of their proposal and background. When one approach was exhausted, they would adopt another tactic. At times, a committee member advocated for a candidate he or she felt strongly should be put forward. This resulted in whittling it down to four candidates for two spots. The committee looked at the diversity of the already selected eight candidates (discipline, U.S. geography and the country/region being discussed; institutions and ethnic/racial diversity). This final step helped to decide the last two finalists. The committee felt that all ten individuals and projects were deserving of a Fulbright grant. They also expressed that if they had six more available spots, that they would have easily been filled. I would like to acknowledge the time and effort of those who serve on the National Screening Committees. While their travel, meals and lodging are covered, they are not compensated in any other way. I acknowledge that the dynamics of each committee will be unique, and this account should not be considered globally representative. There is great value in observing a National Screening Committee. I applaud IIE for their efforts to make the National Screening Committee selection process as transparent as possible.