Jump to content

mobilehobo

Members
  • Posts

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mobilehobo

  • Birthday 03/05/1991

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Application Season
    Already Attending
  • Program
    Mechanical Engineering

Recent Profile Visitors

1,607 profile views

mobilehobo's Achievements

Caffeinated

Caffeinated (3/10)

17

Reputation

  1. From what I heard from past reviewers, they have a certain number of undergrad, first years and second years to award. The reviewers review each year seperate. The choice of when to apply is tricky. I would leave it up to your advisor.
  2. So my university brings about 100 graduate students early in the summer so they can start to do research and write the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program application. Because of the timing of my research statement being 'due' (for the class we take), I ended up writing it with my second rotation. I went onto by third rotation in October, finished writing my application with my second rotation, and submitted. I ended up joining my rotation #3 lab in December, then getting the GRFP last week based on my application with rotation #2. All is great, except the rotation #2 PI is now expecting that I leave my lab to join hers. She meets with me, pretty much drags my PI through the mud, telling me that his lab would be a poor choice for an academic career based on their publication history. She reminded me that she did some 'heavy editing' on my research proposal. Then, gives me the next couple weeks to think about what she said and decide if I'll switch or not, telling me she hopes I make the 'ethical decision' here. So normally, I could just say 'no thank you, I will live with my bad decision', but since she's been a great mentor to me so far, I have her on my committee for my upcoming prelims AND I was writing a review paper with her based on my lit review from my NSF application. So now my prelims are next week, and I'm stuck untangling this mess, spending too much time meeting with various people in my department, and what could have been a great relationship has been ruined. I guess more than anything, just words of caution: while the GRFP does fund you whatever you decide to do, others may not feel that it should be that way.
  3. Congrats on your PhD and your wife's award! Looks like you picked a winner ;)
  4. For everyone, win or lose, there is a great blog that gathers together the dumbest reviewer comments.
  5. I was pretty much in the same boat, but I took 6 years but did mediocre academically. I straight up wrote that I grew up poor ('low socioeconomic background' and 'underprivileged'), Had to work full time to take care of my family, and had to go to a local university to stay close to my family. I followed every negative with how I 'overcame' the issue. I did do a lot of outreach through undergrad, so I was able to show how I'm taking my experiences and using them to guide and inspire young students. It's definitely a crap-shoot if you get the reviewers who go for that kind of story though.
  6. Congrats guys, thanks for keeping me company through this wait! I have my fingers crossed for the rest of you.
  7. I got it also! 1st year grad student, 3.4 UG GPA, no publications, but a lot of UG research. Good amount of outreach experience. E/VG,E/E,E/E. All positive reviews. I highlighted the adversities I faced (grew up dirt poor, took care of family through UG..) and how I've overcome them, and related it to the outreach I did. They all spoke to that in the comments.
  8. So I took a look at last year, and they announced the "pre" maintenance in the same message as the results maintenance. So maybe things have changed this year and they're just taking an extra three hours now to get the system all completed and will announce at 6 AM ET today?
  9. Good luck and congrats on the HM last year! Somehow highlighting the important information has been the most consistent advice I've received over the years for this grant. Definitely something I'd recommend for everyone in the future.
  10. Definitely! I'm studying for my prelims right now. I just can't focus. I figure, being on here and engaging with everyone on something academic is at least slightly better than if I just go and play some video games!
  11. I mean, there is no requirement for the headers. It's helpful though if you get a lazy reviewer who will only skim your application. Same with bolding things, using buzzwords. It's literally, 'Hey! If you're not going to read everything, read THIS at least!'.
  12. So first off: 1st years and 2nd years are judged separately. Will it be this way in 2017-18? Who knows. Next year, first years will be applying again as second years since we are 'grandfathered in'. But for first years in 2016-17, some will apply, some will wait. I have no clue how they plan to change the number of awards. They want more undergrads to apply and get it. I don't think one year will be enough time to really boost the number of applicants, and they tend to keep similar award ratios per year groups. So it could be advantageous if they are awarding the same number of 1st year fellowships as previously, but not so if they change the ratios around.
  13. Hmm, I think it also depends on how strong your undergrad app is. If you get HM this year then maybe next year is better. If you're like me with less experience from undergrad, waiting til year two and really working hard is better, I'd think.
  14. Have you thought about whether to submit next year or wait until year two? I'm curious on how people are going to make this decision.
  15. I think it is important to try to connect both essays into one cohesive story, but more important to make sure each essay addresses intellectual merit and broader impacts enough. Your signature says you did the peace corp. That had to make for some interesting broader impacts!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use