mobilehobo

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.

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.

Congrats on your PhD and your wife's award! Looks like you picked a winner ;)

For everyone, win or lose, there is a great blog that gathers together the dumbest reviewer comments.

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.

Congrats guys, thanks for keeping me company through this wait! I have my fingers crossed for the rest of you.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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!'.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Yes, this is exactly the advice I received in my GRFP class. Grad school is a challenge where you will face failure now and then. If you can show you've done this and overcame your hurdles, you are demonstrating your ability to be successful later as well.

I've talked to many others in the same boat. I'm just hoping they take into account my personal story. I've also read applications where this goes great, and where it totally alienates the reviewer. I know grad GPAs don't mean anything, but hopefully keeping that high will prove enough we're all academically prepared for graduate school.

Not the OP of that, but I do know that programs with the ability to reverse decisions based on GRFP will contact you. I do know of someone who got into their dream school this way, but it's probably not something every program does. Personally, I wouldn't see why emailing them is bad. Just let them know your application has changed, and you now can come in with three years of GRFP funding, just in case that has any effect on the decision already made. The worse you'd get is that it doesn't change anything.

wow, what a sweet way to put it, thanks!

Start planning your move :)! Once you finalize your grad program, find housing, find roommates... start reading about all the fun you'll have in your new city (assuming it's new to you!).

I just don't know how to keep my mind off of it until I finally know for sure. I'm a first year PhD not in a top graduate program. I went to a local public university and my undergrad GPA was low (3.4), but I was working full time to support my family. I have tons of REU research experience, but no publications to show for it. My application was read by anyone I could get to look at it and it seems to be the best I could have put out. My proposal was realistic and supported by preliminary data, but I could have communicated the applications better. It will probably come down to my letters of rec, but I have no idea what they say. I think I need to find someone to hold my hand when that email goes out!

NSF does try to diversify their fellows between undergrad institutions. However, this is done after they skim off the tippity top people who often come from the same, strong programs. They can award multiple fellowship to a single undergraduate program. If the past is any indication, it will still only be a handful. As one professor has pointed out here, last year there were 37 fellows from all Cal State schools. There were also 37 fellows from Harvard. Cal States total enrollment is nearly 400,000 and Harvard's is 6700. If you go to a stellar program with other very talented people, it likely will not hurt your chances.

I compiled the last decade of result days for GRFP, and for fun, compared them to Easter dates (sadly, no useful correlations). Results Easter Timing of results with Easter weekend: 2016: ???? 27 March ???? 2015: Tuesday, 31 March 5 April Tuesday before 2014: Tuesday, 1 April 20 April Way before 2013: Friday, 29 March 31 March Friday before 2012: Friday, 30 March 8 April Full week before 2011: Tuesday, 5 April 24 April Way before 2010: Tuesday, 6 April 4 April Tuesday after 2009: Friday, 10 April 12 April Friday before 2008: Tuesday, 1 April/Monday, 31 March* 23 March Full week after 2007: Thursday 22 March/Friday, 23 March** 8 April Way before 2006: Monday, April 17th 16 April Day after * 2008, the fellow list was released/hacked before emailing applicants ** 2007, they updated Fastlane before emailing, so awardees saw links like "view print fellow award letter" the day before. Some insight: There doesn't seem to be any correlation between number of applicants and the date the results are released. Applications (and awards) have been steadily rising over time, but the release dates are kind of all over. I heard last year, NSF asked for more funding for more fellows, but was denied so there were only 2000 as with previous years. Was there any request for something similar this year? We likely will see just as many or more applications, but will number of rewards increase as well? There is no correlation between the application due date (almost always first weeks of Nov except this year) and results date. The results have been on Tuesdays/Fridays (2006 was likely late Monday night/early Tuesday morning like the rest). There really isn't a pattern on which day it's released in what year. You could say it alternated until 2011, where a double pattern began. That would put the release date for this year on Friday. It seems they just release it when they have all their ducks in row. They always have the aim for 'early April' each year. Sometimes everything happens quicker, sometimes later. It's impossible to know why. It is coming soon. When you go to the 'search awardees' page, the site has been updated with "2016 Offered Award List: This list of Awardees and Honorable Mention recipients for the year you have selected is not yet available." There will likely be a maintenance break around that time. None has been announced yet, but it still could be posted tomorrow for a Tuesday release.

Quality groups are still definitely a thing for GRFP. They're used for tracking outcomes of fellows and HMs. The numeric scoring is also likely the same since the P/F/G/VG/E scale is still used. Like others who have mentioned it, any two applicants with similar letter scores could have different numeric scores. They also weight your score for the reviewer you get. This can cause wide variability in applicant scoring and award status. I still believe they just draw names from a hat to pick the fellows from quality group 2.

Bumping the thread. Admission decisions will be due in the next few weeks. I'm happy to answer any questions to you guys make that decision.