gingerkid

I'm guessing the 40 or so journal articles don't count.... Other than stationary, I only have two plants, my daily dog calendar, and headphones for rocking out to sweet tunes.

I'm just finishing the first year of my MSc. in Epidemiology. A bit heavy for my first post, but I don't currently have anyone to talk to and I just need to get it out there - my supervisor just left today for 2 weeks of vacation. I don't know if anyone else has this issue. Every time I apply for scholarships/grants/etc. and come to a "Why should you be considered for this award" section, I become completely miserable. I don't know how to justify why I should get funding over other students. My grad-school course grades are very good, but not perfect; I have co-authored one peer-reviewed publication, and am currently writing another manuscript. I have 12 abstracts, most from national meetings, and one oral presentation on which I was first author. I feel I have a good understanding of my research question and how we are approaching it, and my supervisor recently brought up the possibility of doing a PhD, which to me indicates that I must have some idea what I'm doing. And yet, I haven't been able to get any funding. Even worse, when I have contacted internal nomination committees, I can't seem to get a response about what is wrong with my application. The only thing I can think of that might be holding me back is that my undergraduate grades were average at best. Which SUCKS because that is the one thing I cannot change. I know I have to apply for funding, but I feel like I just don't know how to make myself appeal to what the committees are looking for, when I know there are plenty of other smarter, more accomplished students in my program (let alone my school), who's projects are way sexier, from a funding standpoint (it seems like everyone wants to fund AIDS, women's health, cancer, diabetes, head injury, etc.)