loginofpscl

From the NSF solicitation: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13584/nsf13584.htm Since the award period for the NSF is five years (and three years for actual tenure), this means you cannot accept both. On to differences: you have to accept the NDSEG immediately, which is sort of less flexible than the ability to put the GRFP on reserve for up to two years. Any other differences besides the ones listed?

I suppose it depends on what you want to do afterwards! I feel like MIT prepares you better for faculty positions, while Stanford prepares one well for industry careers in the area. The program is only as good as the professors there-- between MIT and Stanford, I think it might be comparing apples and oranges because they don't do the same kind of materials chemistry.

Got it with a 3.5-- all I learned is that GPA is a minor factor compared to many others.

Were fellows competing within Fields of Study or in the wider category? For example, Chemistry had 174 awards and can be divided to Synthesis, Catalysis, etc... were awards weighed against other applicants in the same subdivision, or in Chemistry overall? In addition, were the awards equally distributed across all eligible years? I'm asking if the 174 awards were divvied up threeways and 58 awards were reserved for senior undergraduates, 58 for first year grads, etc...

It can get frustrating but I'm not sure reviewers see what race you are. I believe the NSF allocates awards based on that and the reviewers don't have a say at all. Or at least I think this should be the case!

I'm inclined to think that they not only look at what you've done, but also why you're doing it. If you can reflect your desire to contribute to broader impacts as they define it, then that might assist your application. Diversity doesn't only come from being a specific race, but having experiences that lend you unusual (diverse) perspectives would improve your ability to diversify your field.

What do you mean by priveleged and white troopiedoop?

E/E E/E E/VG

THE MESSAGE IS UP HOLY BALLS

Someone mentioned that the maintenance message may be posted as late as an hour before the schedule time, per previous years.

According to the NSF this week is the week for decisions, so if it isn't Friday we would at least have much to wring our hands over.

Congratulations! I'm sure everyone would appreciate at least a screenshot proof or your email @nsf_weiner

I think this is probably truer for int'l students because Departments (whether justified or not is another debate entirely) typically hold the ACS certification on a higher level. As a domestic applicant with a 3.5 GPA (and somewhat lower in my major), I've found that publications, good recs, and perhaps evidence of outreach would help greatly. To some extent the application process for international students is a crapshoot, so you have to remember you're being held to a slightly higher standard than domestic students as departments have to balance diversity with minimizing risk.

^ This is why I think the fellowship application process is a crapshoot-- people like you come through!

Anyone know how to stop thinking about this? I feel like I'm building myself up for much of nothing, don't wanna be super disappointed in a couple of weeks...

JHU lets you access the med school for collaborations, which would be great if you eventually wanna do cell (or larger) studies. Depends on what you're comfortable with, but Baltimore can be a really stimulating place to live in contrast to corn-laden U-C or the constant cold in Ithaca.

Harvard for a teaching position for sure, but I would say that the weather and culture are better in San Diego. The research depends on the PIs youre interested in and the name of the insitutions will bring you forward the same amount. If you have undergrad teaching experience and it turns out you're more productive and happy at Scripps than Harvard, then the potential teaching experience at Harvard might become a nonfactor. During your visit to CCB it's worth asking the grad students if they learned something from their teaching experience.

Spoke to an alumni about the poaching issue-- the perception that it's hurting Inorganic quite a bit. On the up-side, they were able to hire big talent right back (e.g. Surendranath and Dinca, who both studied under Nocera)

There really isn't a place elsewhere for grad students to discuss this, so here's my two beans: I agree wholeheartedly with brownlee's notion. I think even if you live in Boston/SF the NSF shouldn't be a monetary reward. Whatever the school offers as a stipend should be enough to cover a reasonable cost of living. For example, the Stanford Chemistry stipend is actually ~2K more than the NSF award. I think this is how the NSF should structure the program: reduce the stipend amount and increase the amount of awardees. At this point students will already have been accepted to programs. If the stipend amount is less than the school's stipend (e.g. if the NSF award is 28,000 and Stanford is 34,000), then the school should match up to the difference. For many cities, this is way more than the regular student stipend. For example, the UT Austin stipend is 24k, and in this case the school wouldn't have to match up at all. This way, you get more awardees and schools bear part of the cost of having an essentially free grad student. One downside I can think of is that schools will admit smaller cohorts to reflect the increased burden on their budgets. tl;dr: taxpayers shouldn't shoulder the cost of funding a grad student, and school endowments should be dipped into for this purpose.

After going on visits and hearing the cacophony of needing funding to have more freedom, definitely getting a bit antsy.

Couple I've found: Don't worry about your Cs, they won't kill you. Now that I've gone on visits, I really appreciate the importance of applying to governmental fellowships. This past year the deadlines were November 15 and December 20. Check out 'The Bank', especially for NSF-GRF and NDSEG, as these can greatly influence who/what you can work with/on during grad school.

Around this time the next crop of applicants are starting to sniff around. Starting out, I thought it would have been great to have a Chemistry-centric resource for people who have no idea what to do. Would you guys care to share some insight you've gained during this mess?

There may be some merit to your recommendation, but as long as the PI is well regarded by other PIs it shouldn't be a problem. It's worth asking about, and you should probably do your homework as well (where they did their PhD/postdoc, where are their students now...) This is true for any PI you're considering, domestic or not. I imagine that a PI from an R1 institution is pretty well regarded by their peers: you do not get hired, or get tenure, at an R1 without being respected by your peers.

INTP reporting, but I very frequently fluctuate between P/J, with a trend towards increasing J. I guess I'm growing up?

Some impressions I had, interviewing mostly Inorganic and Analytical professors: Funding is difficult: students typically do not get RA funding until after their qualifyings (end of 2nd year), and I met many 3rd to 5th year students who were still teaching, and not because they wanted to. Professors work hard. Graduate students are mostly laid back and have good work-life balance-- the vibe actually borders on unmotivated, at least from what I saw. Some exceptions in the organic division. Austin is an awesome place to live after all. Despite being a top ranked program, a lot of prospectives and students there admitted they didn't really know what they wanted to do, and largely didn't give an impression of being consummate experts in their fields. Exceptions in the 5th years. Many graduate students said that "I didn't really know anything about my project until my 3rd year." Incredible facilities for synthesis and characterization. These are very accessible and open to everyone. Labs are never closed and students can come in at night and during the weekend. Roughly 1:1 student to fume hood ratio. $400 tuition out of pocket. Not sure if this is per year or per semester, but they never brought this up until someone asked it during the initial presentation. However, cost of living is very low and you can live very well without having to drive a car, making the stipend very liveable. The graduate students are largely geared towards joining industry. Many alumni in labs have apparently gone on to tech companies in Dallas, San Antonio and Austin, plus plenty of students in Dow and the oil companies down in Houston. Anything in particular you were wondering about?