Secret_Ninja
-
Posts
130 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Secret_Ninja
-
-
5 hours ago, Vader Was Framed said:
I am wondering why this thread died. Are there other, more recent, NSF DDRI / DDIG threads? I'm in the process of assembling successful example proposals which are scattered across the internets. Does anyone have a good resource for examples? Particularly for Sociology, Geography, and/or Cultural Anthropology. Or, if you yourself have been awarded an improvement grant ... would you be willing to share your proposal with me? Thank you!
I assume because a new DDIG thread opened up? You could try the search function, it's very handy. Also, why would you need an example of 3 different NSF grants? Sounds a bit strange to me.
-
-
Nothing here for me - Dissertation Fellowship, Physical Anthropology/Animal Behavior.
-
I applied for the dissertation writing fellowship, although for me this was a giant long shot. I had completely forgotten about it until I saw your thread. Good luck to all of us!
-
I'm writing a proposal for a small grant ($5,000) with a limit of 750 words in the project description. There is no mention of a references cited section on the proposal application. Does that mean I should not include one? Or is it expected that it will follow the description? One would think it would be specified in the application if that were the case.
Also, a related question. For these small grants that are applied towards a dissertation project, given that it would fund only a small portion of my activities is it better to focus on one aspect of my dissertation or describe the whole thing? There is no budget requirement so how the money is spent is totally at the discretion of the award winner after the money is received, so I would tend to think it's better to describe the entirety of my dissertation project, but on the other hand it's probably easier to make a persuasive case in only 750 words by going into more depth on just one or two studies/chapters.
I had a similar experience and I emailed the grantor directly. I am glad I did. They told me they expected only a few citations and wanted available space to be utilized for my project. They were very forthcoming and even suggested using very short citations for well known articles and longer ones for anything more obscure. You should absolutely contact the grantor.
I would lean towards describing your entire project. Even if the grant is only supporting a small portion of your research, the committee cannot make an educated selection based off partial information. I know it is tough to pare down your work into 750 words and have impact, but trust me, it can be done. This being said, make the best judgement based off the grantor. For example, if I am applying to a grant whom I know is conservation oriented, I push that angle instead of the anthropological one, and vice versa. It is all the same project, all the same outcomes, but you shift how you drive your message home.
-
That information on additional funding is great news! From what I've read in the past additional funding = additional grants, but at the same time there's no way to know how the extra grants would be distributed or if they would choose to increase individual grant packages instead.
And keep in mind that the countries they partner with share the expense as well. So there has to be approval from both countries before there can be an increase in awards.
-
I was thinking the same thing. I am new to this forum but have looked at past years. I have not gotten my results and wonder if that IIE notice was meant for only some schools? Feeling discouraged.
You should email your program advisor and if that does not help, contact the Fulbright area program director. I did not get my "Congratulations you are now a Fulbright Fellow" email because it was "lost". I had a panicky extra 5 days of waiting before I finally cracked and contacted someone. I was told never to stress about contacting Fulbright because they are there to help us. It turns out they had problems sending emails to some servers. The director promptly forwarded my award letter to a different email.
-
This thread is unusually quiet. Past years had almost 20 pages of reported results (plus 30 more pages before results of just chatter). Are people getting their results in waves? Lurkers, you should be brave and post your results, even you make up a very random name, completely disconnected from who you are. Definitely update the spreadsheet! You do NOT have to put your name or your school affiliation if you want to stay anonymous. Remember that we all use this board and these results to help ourselves in the future. You may decide to try another country or apply for a grant instead of an ETA, won't you be happy to see as much information as possible so that you can tailor the best application?
Fulbright 2015-2016 Spreadsheet
To those who were recommended, congratulations! Do not spend the next 2-6 months fretting. Get yourself involved in something that keeps you too busy to care. Remember that having a "Finalist" line on your CV still looks good. To those who were not recommended, do not despair. Life is a funny thing and sometimes the worst tragedies can be the best outcomes, we just won't realize this until much farther into the future. The fact that your school allowed you to apply is a big deal. And the application process itself a learning opportunity. Think about next year, start to beef up your CV now to be a stronger candidate.
If anyone wants to message me with application help, ideas on how to improve your CV, where to get experience, etc., please feel free to message me. I am a PhD candidate with a great deal of successful grant and fellowship applications. I am more than happy to share this knowledge.
- sheeshee, Photogeographic and husky
-
3
-
I did not apply this year because I got all my funding already, BUT I know that this is a new website and a new form. I was planning to apply (before I heard back from NSF) and during this time experienced some oddities that I emailed GWIS about. Not only did they get back to me quickly, but they seemed fully aware that the new system may be glitchy. I would not worry, I have a feeling they will help if the system causes strange things to happen.
-
I'm not sure how it differs for ETA vs. research but I am on a research fellowship in Indonesia and they give you a max of 14 days off site during your fellowship period. You are allowed to remain in country after your fellowship ends. I am staying longer and they will buy me a ticket home for a date that I choose (it's about 4 months after my fellowship period ends). Although, I am not going to be traveling, my project will still be in full swing.
-
The advantage though in using numerical in-text citations is that it takes up far less space. You hardly lose any lines due to citations. And if you tend to add in-text citations only after you're done writing then there's no problem with judging how much room you need to leave to avoid going over the page limit.
Exactly. Which is why most people I know use the method I mentioned.
-
For Bio Anth they are specific that your references must be in alphabetical order (or were last round). Besides that you can use any citation format. Most people use APA style for the reference list itself, but have numbers in text like Nature. This is how everyone I know does it for Bio Anth. So that my author last name A____ is #1 and Z____ is #68 regardless of where in the text it is placed.
-
Interesting, thanks for the updates.
Yeah, my gf got the news 2 days ago-- no dice
I'm still in purgatory, hopefully you all have reduced budgets
No status date change so maybe that's good? who knows
Sorry about your gf =( Hopefully this was just rejection #1 for her, it is really unusual to get it your first time. This was try #2 for me and I got a bunch of other grants prior to my second submission (and rejections) all of which helped me write a much better proposal second time around.
----But sorry - I still need all allocated monies
-
-
Update for Biological Anth:
I was just sent an email this morning that I was recommended and they need some updated documentation from me - like a new budget in case I found extra funding etc. While recommended does not mean that I absolutely have it, it is a very good sign. I looked at my status in fastlane and nothing has changes. Not the date or the info.
The other student in our cohort has not gotten an email yet. She looked at her status in fastlane. The status date has changed from August to 11/1/14, but there is nothing new when she clicks on it. This happened to me last round and I was rejected.
-
I am doing the dissertation one, not the pre-doctoral, but they have the same suggestion. I believe that in one of the PDFs that has reviewer suggestions, they state that 4 is preferred because they want 4, not as a safety.
-
-
For those Biological Anth people who submitted this summer, with a review date of Oct 23rd, it looks like some rejections have gone out. My advisor had several students apply and got notice of one's rejects. The rest of us were labeled competitive. However, I have not actually heard anything, nor has my status been updated. I think there are more reviews to go.
-
Why is the turnaround so slow on this? For other fellowships (Marshall, Mitchell, Rhodes) the entire decision process is finished by late November or early December. Is our just because the Fulbright program is so much bigger?
Because Fulbright has to deal with more red tap than just the US government. They also have to deal with red tape in each individual country.
-
I'm also applying! Good luck to all of us and any advice from past applicants would be great.
-
-
I have done research with the first two people. One has supervised an independent biology research project (no other classes until this fall). The other I have done psychology research and taken classes with. Unless you think that I should have letters of rec from the two people I described above and not choose one of the people that I just described in this post to write a letter?
I really want to keep the one that has supervised my project because she is in the STEM field (biology) and can attest to my ability to carry out independent research. The POI can attest my ability to research in a team and how attainable my project ideas are. The person I've only taken classes with can attest my character (development) and how well I will do in graduate classes (especially in neuroscience).
The last person, whom I've taken classes and done research with, happens to be my advisor. However, I don't know if his contribution would add anything to what the other three people would say. He certainly has a role in letters of rec for the universities I'm applying to because my POI would not be involved in those.
This is a tricky situation, but you are doing a good job trying to work through how well rounded your letters will be. In my opinion, the STEM field project supervisor is a definite yes, as is the POI. For your third - I would chose my advisor over someone I have just taken classes with; can they also speak to your neuroscience capabilities? Even if he can't, it may look odd that your advisor is not one of your letter writers.
-
I have been quite lucky in that my gut seems to be spot on when I hire assistants. However, I have had one go a bit crazy after the fact about letters of recommendation. I was willing to write them, but told him I needed his information before I left for the field. As you can guess, a frantic email arrived while I was deep in the jungle. To sum up a long story (and avoid remembering some of his less than professional emails), I had to tell him "good luck on your future endeavors". Both my advisor and I were very surprised by the entire ordeal.
Just recently I had a close call - thank goodness I actually take the time to call the references that people provide. This particular person looked amazing on paper, but that is where it ended. Anyone else have to hire your own assistants for research? What stories do you have?
-
I'm looking for opinions on this:
So, I'm trying to decide between two people to write my third letter of rec for Fulbright Canada's STEM program. One knows me quite well (~3 years), I've taken his classes but never did research with him (which is an important factor in this program). The other is my POI at my top choice university (he offered to write a letter for me) whom I have done research with this summer, but haven't taken his classes and he has known me for a shorter period of time (~9 months). I feel that both have equal merit, especially since right now the latter knows my research interests a lot better than the former person. Also, it might be a bonus point in the committee's eyes to have a letter of rec from a professor who I would like to work with in graduate school because he can better determine my potential in his lab.
I'm emailing the former person for his insight, but I'm wondering if anyone here has had a similar situation?
Can you tell the info for the first two people? I made sure that mine covered various aspects. If you have no other letter writers who can speak to your ability to conduct research, then I would go with this person.
NSF DDIG
in The Bank
Posted
Your post sounded pretty sketchy. I guess it's not, but it still read that way.
Its great that your research overlaps so much, good luck finding people to share their work with you.