geographyrocks

From what I understand from talking with two different reviewers: The applications are checked over for any obvious disqualifications. The peer reviews take place after a big meeting amongst each division. It's now done through video chat. The reviewers decide if the person is worth funding. Those that are deemed worthy go to the program officer. The program officer then decides how many per category will be funded. While most will tell you that the research isn't as important as the person, I have a feeling that the project proposed is important for decided who will/will not be funded. Ex: they don't want to fund four people all doing the same type of project within a field. I think they also try to get a mix between theory and application. I *think* the program officer also looks into the diversity of the applicants, but that may be the next step. After the list is narrowed again, diversity is taken into account. I think this is where a lot of E's are taken out. I've also heard that there is some bias to a proposal being too well written because the reviewers suspect the majority of the ideas or writing came from an advisor.

Thanks! I still can't quite believe it.

My policy is: always call if you can. You are much more likely to receive a response by calling.

I had my proposals reviewed by anyone that would read them. All of the content and writing was my own, but the reviews really helped to refine the content and wording.

E/E E/VG E/VG Awarded - Holy crap! My hands are kind of shaking. I did manage to fall asleep. But I've been lying in bed for the past hour or so trying to convince myself I should wait to check my email. I think sleep is effectively ruined. I'm oddly okay with that now.

Ditto. I can't seem to help myself.

Is the release time in Eastern Standard Time? If it is, I might end up staying up after all...

Yes. I'm moving to a RA in the summer from a TA unless I get the NSF. My advisor will then have that money available for who knows what. Edited to add: I'm at a public university and as the above poster pointed out, it would be different at a private university.

It's really all just speculation based on maintenance that may or may not be routine.

I'm telling myself that it's not coming out until Friday so I can *hopefully* get some sleep for my committee meeting on Tuesday. Great timing...

I'm beginning to wonder if a lot of schools overextended themselves last year funding wise. I know my department did. As far as I can tell, I think we're only accepting about half of the students that we accepted last year.

I repeatedly received financial aid emails from one school that I applied to AFTER I was rejected. I had to email the financial aid department to request that they stop sending the emails. THEN I had to send PROOF that I was rejected. Talk about being annoyed. Just a little anecdote to show that financial aid emails, postcards, and letters don't normally mean much. The congratulations and your POI inquiry is a completely different story. Have you contacted the DGS or front office to see if decisions have been made? Maybe they mail out their notifications and yours is delayed/lost/etc.

I don't believe that they make decisions in early February and then "sit on them". The committees generally review the applications in January/February. They then have to go to another person/group of people where diversity standards are met (ie different disciplines). Then I believe it has to go to yet another committee/person/group of people to pick the finalists and honorable mentions. THEN I think it needs to be approved by some director person. This is put together from various discussions I've had with people who have sat on committees. The NSF gives out a quite a bit of money which originally comes from funding from the government. This means that there are A LOT of checks and balances. I bet we'd be amazed by how many people our applications have to go through after they are initially graded. I forgot to add all of the administrative work that must go into this. Lists to be made and such. That takes a bit of time as well.

Like others have said, a null result is still a result. As for an explanation as to why there is no relationship, from what I understand, pyrite seems to flourish when around organisms. Is it possible that the lake you are studying has not had a steady supply of organisms? I don't know what kind of lake you're looking at or what time frame so I really just have guesses coming from out of the dark. I did a quick google search and it seems that there is quite a bit of research on the biological aspect of sulfur isotopes in pyrite. Maybe the biology of that particular lake doesn't reflect climatic shifts?

Contact current graduate students. They have to live somewhere and they will be very candid as to whether they like or dislike where they choose to live. Also look at the citydata forums for Chicago. It's a great source of information although I have found that a lot of people visit that site to convey negative information which may reflect only one incidence and not the whole. Google Earth is friggin fantastic. If you know the location of the apartments, you can use Google maps or Google Earth to roam about the neighborhood using street view. You'd be surprised how much you can learn from using that! I moved across country for grad school so I used all of these methods while researching places to live.

They sent an email. It was just a standard rejection letter. They were nice enough to put my name on the top of it though. I'm actually pretty happy about it now. Boulder is sooooo expensive!

Haha! Don't worry. They'll definitely send you an email if you're rejected. I don't believe my status changed on the website. Although, I didn't really check it after the initial confirmation that I was rejected. Be sure you're checking your spam folders. I've heard emails sometimes end up there. If you haven't heard anything, you're probably on a waitlist.

colombia09: That makes more sense. Professors are notoriously forgetful. It comes with having half a bajillion things to do every day. anco3393: To me, it sounds as it is meant exactly as it reads. You are accepted, but you are not funded yet. You are on the TA waiting list. Depending on where you are on the list, if someone declines, you will be offered the TA position. Most departments have the policy of not admitting students who aren't funded. I would think that if funding falls through, you will then be rejected. Since a lot of students wait until the deadline to give themselves enough time to make a decision, you may not hear about whether you are offered a TA position until after April 15. Crappier than a yes, better than a no.

Agreed. Curious minds are curious.

Something to be aware of with UH is that they're having some sort of budgeting crisis. I haven't been able to find updated reports, but it's definitely something to watch out for. http://khon2.com/2014/11/17/uh-grad-students-protest-poor-oversight-amid-budget-issues-ta-cuts/

The NSF grant looks AMAZING on a CV and will get your named bumped up the ladder when applying for jobs in the future. It also lets your department know that you're a serious student. Hell, I've gotten more respect just by applying. Edited to add: The fastlane website is down and my first reaction was : OMG! Maybe it's down because they're changing all the statuses. Yeah, right.

1) Yes, it is considered low, but definitely not a deal breaker. 2) Lack of publication doesn't look bad, but it definitely helps if you publish. 3) Looking at your interests, I was going to recommend UNM. You HAVE to contact a professor at UNM to be considered for admission. If you have questions about the department or professors, feel free to message me. Your GRE's should be fine. And your GPA isn't that terrible when combined with the GRE. So maybe the first failure was due to a weak SOP or letters. You really have to both sell yourself to the school as well as comment on why school/professor/department is a good fit for you. But contact with the professor you're interested in is really key. With that being said, the GRE score is fairly easy to improve unless you have test anxiety that impacts your scores. You generally want scores over 160 to feel "safe". UT is incredibly popular as well which makes it harder to get into. 4) CU Boulder should be listed as a reach school. They get over 600 applicants per year. I doubt you mean CU Denver as people normally don't talk about them much. I don't even know if they have a Geology program. As for the GRE, you should have made a logon when you first set up the account. I believe it's your email address. You can attempt to access your GRE that way.

GIS: geographic information systems. The most popular is ArcGIS, but cheaper (or free) versions are really gaining popularity.

A professor in my department has a student that he really wants to take on. Department politics ensued and he wasn't able to get a position for the student because other professors received priority. I'm guessing they've brought in more grant money or attention lately. So it is definitely possible to have a professor want you and have the department say no.

I was sent financial aid emails after being rejected so I wouldn't put much hope into the emails. As a side note, I actually had to email the financial aid office at the school to request that they stop sending the emails. They had sent me 3-4 at that point.