blackpeppered

Your psych area has chem stats copied over onto it. Could you repost that section? This is fantastic

I called, and aside from the standard responses, they said that this particular award was a typo/mistake.

Long as we're all civil here.

Guttata - do you have any thoughts on what this particular listing means?

There are other universities, however, which have ongoing NSF grants that have not been updated yet for this year.

Sounds to me like awards will go out tomorrow, based on this one award already existing.

True, and if you look at the estimated expiration date, it's for 5 years from now - the maximum time frame you can use to distribute your grant within. It looks like this is an actual award for this year, but we're still left with why just this one. Perhaps they began determining who gets the grants, but mistakenly uploaded one decision online before realizing the "offline" announcement hadn't gone up yet?

From looking at the page, it seems this is when the money is awarded to schools, but the dates seem to suggest that's when people requested to use them (remember, you can decide to defer accepting your GRFP for 12 months here and there, or accept it in the fall/summer, etc.) So, another possibility is that this ONE award might reflect someone who won the award last year, but deferred accepting it until this year, possibly once getting accepted into a graduate program the second time around.

If you look up the previous awards, one way they list them is by university, as a record of funding achieved in total. http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1424871&HistoricalAwards=false So some universities show having received X million for the nsf GRFP, whereas others, who might have only had one student receive the GRFP, might list it once, as $44k if they received it that year, or if the year before, 44kx2 = $88K, etc. PIs seem to never be the student themselves - I looked up some others, and they're dean provosts, etc. Perhaps it's meant to give credit to the students' mentors/university for having helped them get this far.

Source?

Interesting. Aside from one professor in my department at undergrad (who had a multi-million dollar research grant, and used portions of it to pay off his TA's teaching assignments for all but the two semesters necessary for the program) I don't know anyone who hasn't been required to TA their first year (and every semester afterwards). The big difference seems to be whether they throw you into a semester or two of TA grading/proctoring before they have you TA as a course or lab instructor. Perhaps it's different for some of the more prestigious schools - I'm using experiences from several R1 universities, but they're all state schools, as well.

http://news.sciencemag.org/education/2014/03/nsf-plans-changes-graduate-fellowships-traineeships While the stipend is increasing, there will NOT be any additional slots compared to last year, leaving only 2,000 slots available. Stakes went up, chances went down.

Posting mostly to get updates on this thread, in case anything new pops up. Last year, got an honorable mention in a field with few awardees (cognitive psych). VG/VG VG/E VG/E VG/E 2nd year grad applicant this time - last shot. Here's hoping this year's improvements count for something. Anyone know if your application is compared against applicants from your year? Or how disabilities are weighted? My comments last year showed that the main reason I didn't get it was because of no publications; this year I had one submitted for review when I applied, but still no real publications. My main improvements were in mentoring, a more cohesive application, and the fact that I thought to mention a disorder or two in the disabilities section. Any thoughts on whether this would improve my application substantially?