loginofpscl

UCSF, UCLA, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, Emory

I can tell you're seeking a more quantitative measure as to whether you will get in or not into your targeted schools-- there is none. Admissions processes are holistic, and while cutoffs are present (both official and unofficial in committee member's preferences and elsewhere), ultimately anything strong will help your application-- i.e., a strong LOR/SOP will help a low GPA/GRE, and vice versa.
 
That is not to say these factors are not equivalent. Many would say that the most important criteria are the LORs, Research experience, and SOP, while GPA/GRE scores are probably fourth in importance. Letters of recommendation are worth their weight and gold, research experience proves you can do it, and your SOP determines your fit and says whether you can really work as a researcher.
 
GPA/GRE scores are a semi-quantitative measure that they use as a filter. If you're going into organic chemistry and you have Cs in Ochem, then that will probably hurt you a lot. But if they see that you got a C in History while applying towards Computational Chemistry, it probably doesn't matter that much. For the GRE scores, a low score will definitely hurt while a high score lets you get past the sieve. Recently, some admission committees claim on be focusing more on the verbal and writing sections (provided you meet a minimum quant) as they know you can game the test, and that research at upper-level institutions revolve much around writing, publishing, proposing, etc...
 
All of this is to say that your experience, LOR, and SOP are what truly matter. Do your best on your GREs and hope you can get in. Unless you have access to a pool of candidate profiles or averages for the schools you are applying to, with complete copies of their LORs and SOPs, there is no way to tell whether you are safe for a school or not. You are nervous and seeking certainty, but from what I've seen you've got a fairly high shot given your creds, and as long as you focus your SOP and your LORs speak of you positively and recommend a future for you as a researcher.

I personally think it would be best to not address it in your SoP. Saying that you overcame something because you did x can sometimes come off as tooting your own horn, in a hard to substantiate way. Let your writers do that for you, if it makes you worry.
 
Re: #2, it doesn't. NSF counts graduate-level study exclusively. The relevant part of section IV:
 
All post-baccalaureate, graduate-level study is counted toward the allowed 12 months of completed graduate study. This includes all master's and doctoral programs.

Hi guys,
 
Just wanted to throw in my two cents of advice. I was lucky enough to get the award last year (in the ecology section). A few thoughts for you going through the process:
 
1. I used IM and BI headings and I think it was helpful. Reviewers read a ton of these. It's as much about making their life easy as anything else. 
2. Write your personal statement as a story, but use IM and BI headings. Stories are memorable. A bunch of good-sounding sentences are not.
3. Obsessively study past winner essays, then write essays better than the ones you read. Google "Alex Lang NSF GRFP". His site is the best resource out there.
4. If you don't have excellent LORs, you are wasting your time. Harsh, but true. They should be from profs or scientists when possible. Mine were 3 profs.
5. If you don't have BI, you are wasting your time. You need to demonstrate that you are a leader and that you impact society. If you can't do that, you will not get the Excellents that you need in BI.
6. Your documents must be perfect. No mistakes. Lucid writing. Edit them about a million times. Bounce them off your advisor. Have your friend who is an English major read them. Twice.
7. You must sell yourself. Everyone who applies is smart and ambitious. You must have a story that stands out. Make it a package. This is why the LORs are so important. You must stand out as a package, not just have a good idea.
8. I'd suggest writing a longer document, then cutting it down to the best. My original research proposal was 4 pages. It was nearly impossible to get it to 2, but when I did, it was all the good stuff.
9. I probably put 80-100 hours into my application, the majority on the research proposal (reading papers and writing).
 
Good luck to all! Go Google Alex Lang now!

As I understand it, the research statement is the most important piece anyway so I doubt you're missing much in that respect.

This fellowship funds the person, not the project. Both essays are equally important.

If it's a good journal, I would mention that it is under review at said journal. It can only help your application.

I disagree with the idea that you should put down your top choice schools. I personally picked one of my mid-tier schools where I knew the professors' work and resources well, and mentioned continuing existing collaborations between professors across departments. I ended up accepting an offer from a higher-ranked school, but NSF reviewers are aware of this in judging senior applicants. I encountered neither difficulty nor a moral crisis requesting a tenure change to the school I will be attending.
 
I would advise applicants to get to know a university other than your undergraduate school very well, communicating with profs at those schools to learn what sort of resources they have to support your proposal.

You should put down an institution that you are applying to. Unless you are applying to your current school, don't put it as your proposed just because you think that you know the resources well. Show that you know what resources are at a new institution and you can impress the committee.

This is a good thing, not a bad thing.
 
I will say though: only emphasize what is relevant to the programs/research interests in your SOP. Don't go on and on about every RA position you had, but just list them on your CV and say you have extensive research experience in your SOP.

I'd say not to be afraid of applying to higher caliber institutions, your degree is just as valid as any from a high ranking university. If they don't want you, fuck them. For lack of a better reference, feel free to apply to programs typically ranked in the top 50. Of course, you shouldn't be looking merely at ranking/prestige, make sure that wherever you apply suits what you want. Think about how much location matters, do you want to live in a city or someplace more rural, how big of a program do you want to enter, and of course what are your research interests. For example, if you want to do drug discovery then there's no point in applying to an organic chemistry program which focuses more on polymer synthesis.

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12062/nsf12062.jsp
 
I received a GRFP Fellowship Offer and currently have a Federal Fellowship (DOE, EPA, etc.); may I accept the GRFP Fellowship?
No. Starting with the 2011 Fellows forward, GRFP Fellowships cannot be concurrently accepted or combined with another US Government Federal Fellowship, irrespective of the Fellow's Status.
I received a GRFP Fellowship Offer and currently have a Federal Fellowship (DOE, EPA, etc.); what are my options?
Starting with the 2011 Fellows forward, GRFP Fellowships cannot be concurrently accepted or combined with another US Government Federal Fellowship, irrespective of the Fellow's Status. You must decline the GRFP Fellowship Offer or terminate your current Federal Fellowship prior to accepting the GRFP Fellowship.

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12062/nsf12062.jsp
 
I received a GRFP Fellowship Offer and currently have a Federal Fellowship (DOE, EPA, etc.); may I accept the GRFP Fellowship?
No. Starting with the 2011 Fellows forward, GRFP Fellowships cannot be concurrently accepted or combined with another US Government Federal Fellowship, irrespective of the Fellow's Status.
I received a GRFP Fellowship Offer and currently have a Federal Fellowship (DOE, EPA, etc.); what are my options?
Starting with the 2011 Fellows forward, GRFP Fellowships cannot be concurrently accepted or combined with another US Government Federal Fellowship, irrespective of the Fellow's Status. You must decline the GRFP Fellowship Offer or terminate your current Federal Fellowship prior to accepting the GRFP Fellowship.

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?

Just got an email that I got awarded!!!! So f'ing happy especially after nsf disappointment. I applied in neural sciences. Good luck to everyone else!!!!

So if I go to https://ndseg.asee.org/award and try to log in, it won't let me. But I think since I am logged into the application site, this site is up: https://ndseg.asee.org/award/19270/overview and gives me a message that I've declined my offer...which I have / would not

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?

Okay, I've currently narrowed down my options for grad to these schools. Does anybody on this site have some info or tips on these two programs?  Any help would be fantastic!

I would like to chime in about the low GPA issue. I graduated in 2011 with a 2.79 GPA. I received E/E, VG/VG, and G/G. For what it's worth, 2 days after graduating I had a job in my field and have been employed steadily with 4 major research universities in that time. Additionally, I have one publication out and two more in prep. Only the G/G reviewer made any comment at all about the GPA. I suspect that the GPA ruled me out immediately in his/her eyes. I did have extenuating circumstances involved with my low GPA. Family issues, depression, death of a close friend, etc etc. it was one tragic event after another for the first 2.5 years of my college career. Finally, during my last semester and a half I pulled it together and raised my GPA from a 1.8 to a 2.79 at an academically rigorous university. While GPA for that one reviewer may have a been a deal breaker, clearly for the other two my actions since then have proven my abilities as a scientist. The E/E reviewer recommended me for funding.

Don't focus too heavily on GPA. If you've got a story to back your low GPA and the science cred along with a kick ass proposal the GPA shouldn't be a huge issue. Anywho, that's my two cents.

Good luck to all of those applying next year.

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

I wouldn't worry too much about more/less money. Your PI should fund you at either institution. At the end of the day, you're not making any money anyway. You'll have enough to live comfortably. 
 
Having fewer requirements is certainly nice, but not something that will hold you back from completing your PhD or prevent you from doing great work.
 
Quality of life heavily depends most on your colleagues and your adviser. It sounds like you have quite a few options to choose from at MIT. This is important since you won't necessarily get your first choice.
 
No arguments about the weather, it just comes down to how much you care!
 
Good luck!

E/E E/E E/VG

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...

E/E E/E E/VG

E/E E/E E/VG