threnagyn

Not trying to be a jerk here - just taking advantage of the open forum. As someone who's migrated from the Science (BS) to Engineering (PhD), it really suprises me the number of people who go on and get a PhD in the humanities. I do love what I do, but the other half is knowing that my work is useful in a world that becomes more overcrowded and 'complex' by the day. I'm sure there are topics in the humanities which are useful, but when these PhD students usually talk to me, its usually about 'Abraham Lincoln studies' or 'Socrates Interpretation'. It boggles my mind that funding even exists for these topics in a time when the EPA can barely afford to give out their already low-paying fellowship awards. Sorry, I know this is harsh to some. It just seems like there are way too many going this route, and that the 'job prospects' agree with me.

Honestly, if that was an April fools prank, thats pretty irresponsible. Lets hope it comes back soon.

Honestly, if that was an April fools prank, thats pretty irresponsible. Lets hope it comes back soon.

It's not even April yet. Stop thinking it was an April Fools prank to put up the maintenance in March. : P

Because it takes more than 3 weeks to go through 14,000 applications?

Not trying to be a jerk here - just taking advantage of the open forum. As someone who's migrated from the Science (BS) to Engineering (PhD), it really suprises me the number of people who go on and get a PhD in the humanities. I do love what I do, but the other half is knowing that my work is useful in a world that becomes more overcrowded and 'complex' by the day. I'm sure there are topics in the humanities which are useful, but when these PhD students usually talk to me, its usually about 'Abraham Lincoln studies' or 'Socrates Interpretation'. It boggles my mind that funding even exists for these topics in a time when the EPA can barely afford to give out their already low-paying fellowship awards. Sorry, I know this is harsh to some. It just seems like there are way too many going this route, and that the 'job prospects' agree with me.

At this point in time, many of us are waiting for a message like this to come up on Fastlane: '03/28/13  -  GRFP/FastLane will be unavailable from 11:00 PM ET Thursday March 28th - 5:00 AM ET Friday, March 29th for scheduled maintenance. We apologize for any inconvenience'
 
For the past few years, this was posted on a Monday (for Tues announcement) or Thursday (for Fri announcement). The message usually appears the day before, but the time of day can vary. In 2012, the first time that someone saw it and reported it on grad cafe was 9:09am. Last year, it was much later - at 8:59pm, just a few hours before it was supposed to go down. Last year, it did not take until 5:00 AM ET for the awards to be posted - there is a post saying 'they're up' at 3:44 AM ET. Emails are sent out shortly afterwards.

Don't ever... ever ever ever feel pressured to stay somewhere that you are not interested in, even if the PI is like a father/mother to you. Never feel pressured to continue doing the same thing since you have prior experience in it. A ton of people make these mistakes and end up in an unhappy situation. Follow your dreams 

I wouldn't assume it'll be Thurs night/Fri morning. It happens first week of April just as often as it happens last week of March. We got a 50/50 shot of it being in 36hrs.

Not trying to be a jerk here - just taking advantage of the open forum. As someone who's migrated from the Science (BS) to Engineering (PhD), it really suprises me the number of people who go on and get a PhD in the humanities. I do love what I do, but the other half is knowing that my work is useful in a world that becomes more overcrowded and 'complex' by the day. I'm sure there are topics in the humanities which are useful, but when these PhD students usually talk to me, its usually about 'Abraham Lincoln studies' or 'Socrates Interpretation'. It boggles my mind that funding even exists for these topics in a time when the EPA can barely afford to give out their already low-paying fellowship awards. Sorry, I know this is harsh to some. It just seems like there are way too many going this route, and that the 'job prospects' agree with me.

Follow the link and download the presentation. If you combine 2,000 awards with the ~17% acceptance, those figures make sense.
 
Edit: They also flat out say 12,000 at the end of the presentation.
 
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nsfgrfp.org%2Fassets%2FFile%2F2014%2520NSF%2520GRFP%2520Presentation.pptx&ei=GUMyU4WmHue90gHwp4CAAg&usg=AFQjCNH9SsE3kPQmMootnNibCCdcvmC2dA&sig2=wGnq5IPC9xEQcpqnDBX7xw&bvm=bv.63738703,d.dmQ

Follow the link and download the presentation. If you combine 2,000 awards with the ~17% acceptance, those figures make sense.
 
Edit: They also flat out say 12,000 at the end of the presentation.
 
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nsfgrfp.org%2Fassets%2FFile%2F2014%2520NSF%2520GRFP%2520Presentation.pptx&ei=GUMyU4WmHue90gHwp4CAAg&usg=AFQjCNH9SsE3kPQmMootnNibCCdcvmC2dA&sig2=wGnq5IPC9xEQcpqnDBX7xw&bvm=bv.63738703,d.dmQ

Follow the link and download the presentation. If you combine 2,000 awards with the ~17% acceptance, those figures make sense.
 
Edit: They also flat out say 12,000 at the end of the presentation.
 
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nsfgrfp.org%2Fassets%2FFile%2F2014%2520NSF%2520GRFP%2520Presentation.pptx&ei=GUMyU4WmHue90gHwp4CAAg&usg=AFQjCNH9SsE3kPQmMootnNibCCdcvmC2dA&sig2=wGnq5IPC9xEQcpqnDBX7xw&bvm=bv.63738703,d.dmQ

Honestly, a lot of people (about ~25-30%) get HM or an award now that they've raised the # of awards to 2,000 from 1,000 a few years ago. Last year they issued 2,000 awards and 1,700 HMs.
 
But think about it, what goes into a funded application? A lot of it is related to hard work, but its not so straightforward. A lot of people have parents willing to dish out $3,000 for a 'humanitarian/volunteer trip to Africa' every other year that maybe you and I couldn't afford. There's so many people that get to do this 2-3 times because someone else paid. They go there for a week or two, do a minimal amount of 'group labor', and cite it as some moving leadership experience that reviewers gawk over. Similarly, many students don't need to get a part time job during the school year because their parents are paying most/all of their tuition. Not having to work makes pulling a 3.5+/4.0 that much more obtainable. Anyone can pull off a 3.5+ if they are willing to 'work' at least 20 hrs a week. It also makes getting into undergraduate research labs easier since you have more time on your hands. Some people have an awesome proposal because their advisors wrote it for them almost entirely. Many applicants are dishonest in their applications. Reviewers are also WILDLY inconsistent. I'm not saying that people who get the awards fall into these categories, I'm just saying that any one of these things can upset the 'fairness' of the award. Just ask yourself - Have you been working hard towards something great, or have you been sitting at home watching TV 8 hrs a day and just stop by the lab for a few hours a day? If you can answer that to yourself honestly, you'll know how to feel regardless of whether or not you get the award.
 
We will all have a lot of chances to prove ourselves during our PhD program and afterwards. This NSF GRFP award seems important now, but its really just a drop in the bucket - unless you don't have an RA or TA alternative. In which case, you haven't been looking in the right places. RAs and TAs are so so so easy to get now. They are available to almost everyone willing to take one who is at least mildly competitive (3.0 gpa, some work/research experience at some point in their lives). At least, this is the way it is in the hard sciences and engineering.

Honestly, a lot of people (about ~25-30%) get HM or an award now that they've raised the # of awards to 2,000 from 1,000 a few years ago. Last year they issued 2,000 awards and 1,700 HMs.
 
But think about it, what goes into a funded application? A lot of it is related to hard work, but its not so straightforward. A lot of people have parents willing to dish out $3,000 for a 'humanitarian/volunteer trip to Africa' every other year that maybe you and I couldn't afford. There's so many people that get to do this 2-3 times because someone else paid. They go there for a week or two, do a minimal amount of 'group labor', and cite it as some moving leadership experience that reviewers gawk over. Similarly, many students don't need to get a part time job during the school year because their parents are paying most/all of their tuition. Not having to work makes pulling a 3.5+/4.0 that much more obtainable. Anyone can pull off a 3.5+ if they are willing to 'work' at least 20 hrs a week. It also makes getting into undergraduate research labs easier since you have more time on your hands. Some people have an awesome proposal because their advisors wrote it for them almost entirely. Many applicants are dishonest in their applications. Reviewers are also WILDLY inconsistent. I'm not saying that people who get the awards fall into these categories, I'm just saying that any one of these things can upset the 'fairness' of the award. Just ask yourself - Have you been working hard towards something great, or have you been sitting at home watching TV 8 hrs a day and just stop by the lab for a few hours a day? If you can answer that to yourself honestly, you'll know how to feel regardless of whether or not you get the award.
 
We will all have a lot of chances to prove ourselves during our PhD program and afterwards. This NSF GRFP award seems important now, but its really just a drop in the bucket - unless you don't have an RA or TA alternative. In which case, you haven't been looking in the right places. RAs and TAs are so so so easy to get now. They are available to almost everyone willing to take one who is at least mildly competitive (3.0 gpa, some work/research experience at some point in their lives). At least, this is the way it is in the hard sciences and engineering.

Honestly, a lot of people (about ~25-30%) get HM or an award now that they've raised the # of awards to 2,000 from 1,000 a few years ago. Last year they issued 2,000 awards and 1,700 HMs.
 
But think about it, what goes into a funded application? A lot of it is related to hard work, but its not so straightforward. A lot of people have parents willing to dish out $3,000 for a 'humanitarian/volunteer trip to Africa' every other year that maybe you and I couldn't afford. There's so many people that get to do this 2-3 times because someone else paid. They go there for a week or two, do a minimal amount of 'group labor', and cite it as some moving leadership experience that reviewers gawk over. Similarly, many students don't need to get a part time job during the school year because their parents are paying most/all of their tuition. Not having to work makes pulling a 3.5+/4.0 that much more obtainable. Anyone can pull off a 3.5+ if they are willing to 'work' at least 20 hrs a week. It also makes getting into undergraduate research labs easier since you have more time on your hands. Some people have an awesome proposal because their advisors wrote it for them almost entirely. Many applicants are dishonest in their applications. Reviewers are also WILDLY inconsistent. I'm not saying that people who get the awards fall into these categories, I'm just saying that any one of these things can upset the 'fairness' of the award. Just ask yourself - Have you been working hard towards something great, or have you been sitting at home watching TV 8 hrs a day and just stop by the lab for a few hours a day? If you can answer that to yourself honestly, you'll know how to feel regardless of whether or not you get the award.
 
We will all have a lot of chances to prove ourselves during our PhD program and afterwards. This NSF GRFP award seems important now, but its really just a drop in the bucket - unless you don't have an RA or TA alternative. In which case, you haven't been looking in the right places. RAs and TAs are so so so easy to get now. They are available to almost everyone willing to take one who is at least mildly competitive (3.0 gpa, some work/research experience at some point in their lives). At least, this is the way it is in the hard sciences and engineering.

Honestly, a lot of people (about ~25-30%) get HM or an award now that they've raised the # of awards to 2,000 from 1,000 a few years ago. Last year they issued 2,000 awards and 1,700 HMs.
 
But think about it, what goes into a funded application? A lot of it is related to hard work, but its not so straightforward. A lot of people have parents willing to dish out $3,000 for a 'humanitarian/volunteer trip to Africa' every other year that maybe you and I couldn't afford. There's so many people that get to do this 2-3 times because someone else paid. They go there for a week or two, do a minimal amount of 'group labor', and cite it as some moving leadership experience that reviewers gawk over. Similarly, many students don't need to get a part time job during the school year because their parents are paying most/all of their tuition. Not having to work makes pulling a 3.5+/4.0 that much more obtainable. Anyone can pull off a 3.5+ if they are willing to 'work' at least 20 hrs a week. It also makes getting into undergraduate research labs easier since you have more time on your hands. Some people have an awesome proposal because their advisors wrote it for them almost entirely. Many applicants are dishonest in their applications. Reviewers are also WILDLY inconsistent. I'm not saying that people who get the awards fall into these categories, I'm just saying that any one of these things can upset the 'fairness' of the award. Just ask yourself - Have you been working hard towards something great, or have you been sitting at home watching TV 8 hrs a day and just stop by the lab for a few hours a day? If you can answer that to yourself honestly, you'll know how to feel regardless of whether or not you get the award.
 
We will all have a lot of chances to prove ourselves during our PhD program and afterwards. This NSF GRFP award seems important now, but its really just a drop in the bucket - unless you don't have an RA or TA alternative. In which case, you haven't been looking in the right places. RAs and TAs are so so so easy to get now. They are available to almost everyone willing to take one who is at least mildly competitive (3.0 gpa, some work/research experience at some point in their lives). At least, this is the way it is in the hard sciences and engineering.

Honestly, a lot of people (about ~25-30%) get HM or an award now that they've raised the # of awards to 2,000 from 1,000 a few years ago. Last year they issued 2,000 awards and 1,700 HMs.
 
But think about it, what goes into a funded application? A lot of it is related to hard work, but its not so straightforward. A lot of people have parents willing to dish out $3,000 for a 'humanitarian/volunteer trip to Africa' every other year that maybe you and I couldn't afford. There's so many people that get to do this 2-3 times because someone else paid. They go there for a week or two, do a minimal amount of 'group labor', and cite it as some moving leadership experience that reviewers gawk over. Similarly, many students don't need to get a part time job during the school year because their parents are paying most/all of their tuition. Not having to work makes pulling a 3.5+/4.0 that much more obtainable. Anyone can pull off a 3.5+ if they are willing to 'work' at least 20 hrs a week. It also makes getting into undergraduate research labs easier since you have more time on your hands. Some people have an awesome proposal because their advisors wrote it for them almost entirely. Many applicants are dishonest in their applications. Reviewers are also WILDLY inconsistent. I'm not saying that people who get the awards fall into these categories, I'm just saying that any one of these things can upset the 'fairness' of the award. Just ask yourself - Have you been working hard towards something great, or have you been sitting at home watching TV 8 hrs a day and just stop by the lab for a few hours a day? If you can answer that to yourself honestly, you'll know how to feel regardless of whether or not you get the award.
 
We will all have a lot of chances to prove ourselves during our PhD program and afterwards. This NSF GRFP award seems important now, but its really just a drop in the bucket - unless you don't have an RA or TA alternative. In which case, you haven't been looking in the right places. RAs and TAs are so so so easy to get now. They are available to almost everyone willing to take one who is at least mildly competitive (3.0 gpa, some work/research experience at some point in their lives). At least, this is the way it is in the hard sciences and engineering.

Honestly, a lot of people (about ~25-30%) get HM or an award now that they've raised the # of awards to 2,000 from 1,000 a few years ago. Last year they issued 2,000 awards and 1,700 HMs.
 
But think about it, what goes into a funded application? A lot of it is related to hard work, but its not so straightforward. A lot of people have parents willing to dish out $3,000 for a 'humanitarian/volunteer trip to Africa' every other year that maybe you and I couldn't afford. There's so many people that get to do this 2-3 times because someone else paid. They go there for a week or two, do a minimal amount of 'group labor', and cite it as some moving leadership experience that reviewers gawk over. Similarly, many students don't need to get a part time job during the school year because their parents are paying most/all of their tuition. Not having to work makes pulling a 3.5+/4.0 that much more obtainable. Anyone can pull off a 3.5+ if they are willing to 'work' at least 20 hrs a week. It also makes getting into undergraduate research labs easier since you have more time on your hands. Some people have an awesome proposal because their advisors wrote it for them almost entirely. Many applicants are dishonest in their applications. Reviewers are also WILDLY inconsistent. I'm not saying that people who get the awards fall into these categories, I'm just saying that any one of these things can upset the 'fairness' of the award. Just ask yourself - Have you been working hard towards something great, or have you been sitting at home watching TV 8 hrs a day and just stop by the lab for a few hours a day? If you can answer that to yourself honestly, you'll know how to feel regardless of whether or not you get the award.
 
We will all have a lot of chances to prove ourselves during our PhD program and afterwards. This NSF GRFP award seems important now, but its really just a drop in the bucket - unless you don't have an RA or TA alternative. In which case, you haven't been looking in the right places. RAs and TAs are so so so easy to get now. They are available to almost everyone willing to take one who is at least mildly competitive (3.0 gpa, some work/research experience at some point in their lives). At least, this is the way it is in the hard sciences and engineering.

This is wonderful. I think it is a little too easy, particularly when enrolled in stressful graduate programs, to allow that stress to manifest as pointed anxiety about benchmark decisions. But building up the meaning of these results doesn't serve us very well, as receiving an award or or not is distinct from any measure of self-worth. Thanks, iheartplants, for the reminder. Time to do some reframing :-) The worst that happens is that nothing changes, and disappointment will pass in time. Feeling better about the wait already!

Honestly, a lot of people (about ~25-30%) get HM or an award now that they've raised the # of awards to 2,000 from 1,000 a few years ago. Last year they issued 2,000 awards and 1,700 HMs.
 
But think about it, what goes into a funded application? A lot of it is related to hard work, but its not so straightforward. A lot of people have parents willing to dish out $3,000 for a 'humanitarian/volunteer trip to Africa' every other year that maybe you and I couldn't afford. There's so many people that get to do this 2-3 times because someone else paid. They go there for a week or two, do a minimal amount of 'group labor', and cite it as some moving leadership experience that reviewers gawk over. Similarly, many students don't need to get a part time job during the school year because their parents are paying most/all of their tuition. Not having to work makes pulling a 3.5+/4.0 that much more obtainable. Anyone can pull off a 3.5+ if they are willing to 'work' at least 20 hrs a week. It also makes getting into undergraduate research labs easier since you have more time on your hands. Some people have an awesome proposal because their advisors wrote it for them almost entirely. Many applicants are dishonest in their applications. Reviewers are also WILDLY inconsistent. I'm not saying that people who get the awards fall into these categories, I'm just saying that any one of these things can upset the 'fairness' of the award. Just ask yourself - Have you been working hard towards something great, or have you been sitting at home watching TV 8 hrs a day and just stop by the lab for a few hours a day? If you can answer that to yourself honestly, you'll know how to feel regardless of whether or not you get the award.
 
We will all have a lot of chances to prove ourselves during our PhD program and afterwards. This NSF GRFP award seems important now, but its really just a drop in the bucket - unless you don't have an RA or TA alternative. In which case, you haven't been looking in the right places. RAs and TAs are so so so easy to get now. They are available to almost everyone willing to take one who is at least mildly competitive (3.0 gpa, some work/research experience at some point in their lives). At least, this is the way it is in the hard sciences and engineering.

Honestly, a lot of people (about ~25-30%) get HM or an award now that they've raised the # of awards to 2,000 from 1,000 a few years ago. Last year they issued 2,000 awards and 1,700 HMs.
 
But think about it, what goes into a funded application? A lot of it is related to hard work, but its not so straightforward. A lot of people have parents willing to dish out $3,000 for a 'humanitarian/volunteer trip to Africa' every other year that maybe you and I couldn't afford. There's so many people that get to do this 2-3 times because someone else paid. They go there for a week or two, do a minimal amount of 'group labor', and cite it as some moving leadership experience that reviewers gawk over. Similarly, many students don't need to get a part time job during the school year because their parents are paying most/all of their tuition. Not having to work makes pulling a 3.5+/4.0 that much more obtainable. Anyone can pull off a 3.5+ if they are willing to 'work' at least 20 hrs a week. It also makes getting into undergraduate research labs easier since you have more time on your hands. Some people have an awesome proposal because their advisors wrote it for them almost entirely. Many applicants are dishonest in their applications. Reviewers are also WILDLY inconsistent. I'm not saying that people who get the awards fall into these categories, I'm just saying that any one of these things can upset the 'fairness' of the award. Just ask yourself - Have you been working hard towards something great, or have you been sitting at home watching TV 8 hrs a day and just stop by the lab for a few hours a day? If you can answer that to yourself honestly, you'll know how to feel regardless of whether or not you get the award.
 
We will all have a lot of chances to prove ourselves during our PhD program and afterwards. This NSF GRFP award seems important now, but its really just a drop in the bucket - unless you don't have an RA or TA alternative. In which case, you haven't been looking in the right places. RAs and TAs are so so so easy to get now. They are available to almost everyone willing to take one who is at least mildly competitive (3.0 gpa, some work/research experience at some point in their lives). At least, this is the way it is in the hard sciences and engineering.

Honestly, a lot of people (about ~25-30%) get HM or an award now that they've raised the # of awards to 2,000 from 1,000 a few years ago. Last year they issued 2,000 awards and 1,700 HMs.
 
But think about it, what goes into a funded application? A lot of it is related to hard work, but its not so straightforward. A lot of people have parents willing to dish out $3,000 for a 'humanitarian/volunteer trip to Africa' every other year that maybe you and I couldn't afford. There's so many people that get to do this 2-3 times because someone else paid. They go there for a week or two, do a minimal amount of 'group labor', and cite it as some moving leadership experience that reviewers gawk over. Similarly, many students don't need to get a part time job during the school year because their parents are paying most/all of their tuition. Not having to work makes pulling a 3.5+/4.0 that much more obtainable. Anyone can pull off a 3.5+ if they are willing to 'work' at least 20 hrs a week. It also makes getting into undergraduate research labs easier since you have more time on your hands. Some people have an awesome proposal because their advisors wrote it for them almost entirely. Many applicants are dishonest in their applications. Reviewers are also WILDLY inconsistent. I'm not saying that people who get the awards fall into these categories, I'm just saying that any one of these things can upset the 'fairness' of the award. Just ask yourself - Have you been working hard towards something great, or have you been sitting at home watching TV 8 hrs a day and just stop by the lab for a few hours a day? If you can answer that to yourself honestly, you'll know how to feel regardless of whether or not you get the award.
 
We will all have a lot of chances to prove ourselves during our PhD program and afterwards. This NSF GRFP award seems important now, but its really just a drop in the bucket - unless you don't have an RA or TA alternative. In which case, you haven't been looking in the right places. RAs and TAs are so so so easy to get now. They are available to almost everyone willing to take one who is at least mildly competitive (3.0 gpa, some work/research experience at some point in their lives). At least, this is the way it is in the hard sciences and engineering.

To all those who applied - I think this year is going to be the easiest year in the history of NSF GRFP to recieve a fellowship, especially if you are a 2nd year grad student.
 
A few years ago, the number of awards jumped from 1,000 to 2,000. Even though this attracted more applicants, the number of applicantions did not double - thus, the success rate went up. The award rate has been around 15-20%. Also, There is a cumulative effect with each passing year if you are applying at later stages (1st or 2nd year grad). This is because your competition is worse than it would be if there were less awards in previous years. Confusing? Let me explain. More competive applicants win the award at earlier stages (senior year of undergrad, 1st year grad) and are 'removed from the running' at subsequent stages. Somebody who won during their senior year can't apply later on obviously. If more people win at these earlier stages, then less competitive people will be applying next year at the next stage. Also, the award rate at each stage is proportional to the number of applicants that applied at that stage - In simpler words, if 35% of all applicants are 2nd year grad students, 35% of the awards will go to second year grad students. This means that if you are applying as a second year grad student, you are really only competing with those that applied in previous years and failed (even with the high success rate) and those that are applying for the first time as a 2nd year PhD student.
 
But wait, it gets better! The number of awards is expected to increase from 2,000 to 2,700 this year because NSF wants to stimulate STEM fields!
 
tl;dr version: If you applied as a 1st or 2nd year PhD student, you probably have the best chances of winning the award than at any other point in time because your competition is worse and because award/application ratio will probably be higher than its ever been.
 
Good Luck. I don't think you'll need it.

My heart hasn't beated this quickly (from non-exercise) since my first kiss 12 years ago. To the guy who said 'go to bed, it'll be there in the morning': Is that supposed to be a joke. LOL.