VentiHalfCaff

Wow, Pitangus, thank you! (post #795) That was an awesome post! So informative. So, from your description, my 5 VG's and 1 E were either rated by tough reviewers and then given higher z-scores that ultimately put me in group one, or I was awarded from group two because of other criteria like "geographical region, discipline, and other factors." Very interesting. Thanks so much for explaining!

Wow. I love the discussion. Lots of good info. Oh!! That makes sense! So glad you joined the discussion, flyerdog11. It sounds like you know stuff. Tell us more! I mentioned in an earlier thread that I was merely reading stuff and trying to make sense of it -- and that I may have mis-interpreted what I was reading. Sounds like I did. But you sound like you may know a thing or two about the process. I'd love to hear more about it, if you have more to offer. @geographyrocks, Okay. I see what you mean. I agree with that. It was your guess in the earlier post that "that's where a lot of E's are taken out" that got me writing. @isilya, Interesting that you've always heard that, too. I like the way you put it: "There's a reason the NSF doesn't require you to follow through on your proposed project if you're funded: they care about your ability to conduct research and impact society more broadly, rather than the specifics of your research." And do you think, isilya, that the assessments (E, VG, G, etc.) are mainly assessing your Personal Statement and your Research Plan Statement? In other words, are they reflective of the 2 Statements, more than they are of your application as a whole? Any idea?

^Yeah, that makes sense. I see what you mean.

That's interesting. I hadn't heard before that "the research isn't as important as the person." If that's the case (and maybe it is), then that might partially explain why I was awarded with only 1 E and 5 VG's. If the focus is on the person or the person's potential rather than the details of the proposed research, then maybe that explains why a person might get "merely" above average assessments and still earn the award. Don't get me wrong: I don't think my proposal was shabby in any way, and I'm not saying I wasn't qualified, (and I know many other people were qualified but weren't awarded), but the fact that I was awarded my with mostly VG assessments has me very curious about the process. If it's said by most that "the research isn't as important as the person," maybe the 3 Peer Reviewers are sort of responsible for analyzing the proposal itself -- mainly the two statements, with less emphasis on "the person" (the rest of the application) -- and thought that my proposal was Very Good, but maybe the Program Officer is responsible for more thoroughly viewing the application in its entirety and thought the "person" or the "potential of the person" was award-worthy? I know ... it's a long shot and a total guess. I'm thinking out loud. But could this be the case? Wow. I have to disagree with you about a lot of the E's being taken out after considering diversity. That sounds to me like a very narrow view. It's as if you're implying that the non-diverse people naturally have the lion's share of E's, and that the diverse people naturally have lower non-E assessments ... but are awarded anyway. It's kind of like the old line, generally uttered by white people, of URM's, in the past, "He (or she) took my slot!" As if the "slot" belonged to the non-URM in the first place, or as if he was entitled to it from the beginning. Or as if the URM was not qualified by his or her own merits in the first place -- which non-URM's seemed to assume based solely on the URM's gender or the color of his/her skin. It is my bet that there are plenty of E's and VG's to go around -- from URM's and non-URM's, and that there were other possibly minor differences, besides diversity, that separated an awardee from an HM or deny. (And I'm speaking as a non-diverse, white male, non-URM, from a large state public who got only 1 E.) Sure, I know that NSF is focused on Broadening Diversity and promoting a team of NSF-funded scientists and engineers in STEM fields that mirrors our population. I understand that diversity IS part of the equation. But I am guessing that it's more of an occasional tie-breaker than a factor that routinely tosses exceptionally well-qualified non-URM's aside in favor of less-than-qualified URM's. That's too narrow for my thinking. Your other comment, geography rocks, is interesting. I hadn't heard that either. (I've really had very little exposure to the process.) Based on my knowledge of the college application process, and comparing this to that, I have an educated guess about this. The fact that a proposal is exceptionally well-written -- that fact alone -- may not be a threat to the applicant at all. Instead, the threat of having your proposal downgraded or denied for exceptional writing might arise only if the rest of your application doesn't support the fact that you're an exceptional writer. If your grades, test scores, academic honors, fellowships, scholarships, publications, presentations, and reference letters all support the fact that you can write exceptionally well, then there's no threat. But if your proposal is exceptionally well-written and the remainder of your application doesn't support the concept that you are an exceptional writer ... well, then, it kind of makes sense that there's a threat. (It did not occur to me that some people might turn in their advisor's work -- or that an advisor might "help" an applicant too much!) I do know that in the college application and scholarship process, admissions officers look for consistency across the entire application. If the entire application is consistent across the board in terms of stated strengths, the applicant is more likely to be selected for admission/scholarship. I understand, braindump. We have some of the same wonders. You had mostly E's and no award, and I had mostly VG's and an award. It's confusing. Of course, there's the fact that different Peer Reviewers are going to rate differently. I suppose one applicant could have easily-impressed Peer Reviewers while another has hard-ass Peer Reviewers. And of course, there are bound to be other variables. But I do understand your frustration. You got great comments and tippy top assessments, and yet you weren't awarded. Disappointing. Anyway, it's been an interesting discussion. Lots of food for thought. Please keep those ideas coming. What have you heard about the process?

^ Hmmm. I don't agree that it sounds like one Program Officer's opinion can completely override three Peer Reviewers' opinions. The NSF website says, somewhere (I read it at one point), that the Peer Reviewers are NOT tasked with recommending or denying an applicant, but rather solely with the task of assessing each proposal using the prescribed Merit Criteria. The Program Officer uses their assessments and comments as a tool to more quickly weigh the propsals' merits, I think. Since the Peer Reviewers are not tasked to say yea or nay, their opinions aren't really being overridden. They're just independently assessing the proposals based on their merits, not giving an opinion on "pass/fail/HM." It's interesting that your comments said things like "strongly recommend" and "one of the best on this level," though. Mine didn't have those sorts of comments. The comments on mine were addressing my proposal as an independent unit, it seems, without any reference to any comparison value or any eye towards "passing or failing." But your response got me reading more. Here's one thing I found on the website: "4. FACT: Most proposals that are awarded do not receive all "Excellents." DISCUSSION: It is not true that a proposal must receive all "Excellents" to be funded; in fact, most proposals that are awarded do not receive all "Excellents." Furthermore, even if you get all "Excellents," you may not be funded. See the annual reports to the National Science Board on the National Science Foundation's Merit Review Process for data about proposals and success rates, as well as further information and data concerning the merit review process." So the decisions are definitely not based on the assessments alone. I also just learned that the reviewers are volunteers who have some expertise in the field and are chosen by the Program Officer, and that, yes, there are many Program Officers, one for each category (Life Sciences, Engineering, Psychology, etc). This info is all from reading the website. It's always possible that I misinterpreted some stuff, but that's how the site read to me. I would still love to hear more from anybody!

^ That's interesting, Aliake. I did read on the NSF site that most awardees do NOT receive all E's. From my reading, it seems that the Program Officer has much more to do with the selection than the reviewers, assuming that one meets the basic criteria to move past the Peer Review. Anybody else have any insight or comments on the process?

So, in reading the NSF website, it seems that the three Peer Reviewers, who are awarding the assessments, basically determine whether your application will make it into the pile of "finalists," if you will, and then those "finalists," so to speak, are considered for further review by the NSF Program Officer. Then, "After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the Program Officer makes an award/decline recommendation to the Division Director." And then, "Final programmatic approval for a proposal is generally completed at the Division level. If the Program Officer makes an award recommendation and the Division Director concurs, the recommendation is submitted to the Division of Grants and Agreements for award processing." So, I'm just really curious about the different people involved. I'm new to this whole process and have very little knowledge of it. Who might be the Peer Reviewers? Volunteers who work in the field in the applicant's area of "expertise?" So, mechanical engineering proposals might be reviewed by 3 mechanical engineers who actually work in the field? Or maybe by mechanical engineering professors? Grad students? A little of each? And who might be the NSF Program Officer? Is there more than one NSF Program Officer to cover the spectrum of areas of study? Or is there one NSF Program Officer who reviews ALL applications in all fields that make it past the 3 Peer Reviewers? (That would be a heck of a lot of work!) And finally, I have the same questions about the Division Director as I do about the Program Officer. I'm just really curious. I was awarded with a VG/VG, E/VG, VG/VG with lots of positive comments. My Peer Reviewers seemed to kind of like my proposal/application, but I guess they weren't totally wowed, or I would have received more E's. But, there are clearly some proposals (listed on this forum) that wowed their peer reviewers enough to earn a lot of E's, and many of those received HM's or were denied. From reading more about the review process on the NSF website, it seems that the NSF Program Officer who reviewed my proposal may have been more impressed with it than my 3 Peer Reviewers. Or maybe my Peer Review assessments (lots of VG's) were some of the best in my group of senior undergrads in my field? Can somebody with some experience please comment? Thanks!

I found out this morning that I received an NSF award. It's a very good day. I received full funding for tuition, fees, housing, meals, books, travel, plus an additional $10,000/yr stipend in the form of a fellowship for my MS. Happy. Relieved. Here's my original post on this thread (post #5): Posted 04 October 2014 - 03:03 AM Undergrad Institution: Big State Public, Top 10 Public for Engineering Major(s): Mechanical Engineering Minor(s): Yes, but I don't want to specify for privacy reasons. GPA in Major: 4.0 Overall GPA: 4.0 Length of Degree: 4 Years Position in Class: Top Type of Student: Domestic, Male, Non-URM GRE Scores: Q: 167 V: 170 W: 5.5 Research Experience: Will have 2 years of research with prof, plus one summer with prof. Awards/Honors/Recognitions: Several named scholarships from within school and/or department; 2 named scholarships/awards from outside of school; 4 departmental awards/recognitions. Pertinent Activities or Jobs: No pertinent activities or jobs within engineering. Some volunteer work with engineering student recruitment. Appointed to major leadership position for 4 years in on-campus, non-engineering activity. Any Miscellaneous Accomplishments that Might Help: Foreign language semi-proficiency. Applying for MS at: Just one Big State school.

Awarded! So excited! Senior undergrad. VG/VG, E/VG, VG/VG. Lots of positive comments. Very few negatives. I'm kind of surprised that I was an awardee even though my assessments weren't nearly as high as so many other awardees or even some HM's. Any ideas about why that may be? Compared to my peers in my field? Compared to my peers who are senior undergrads? Why might I have earned an award with so few E's? Not that I'm complaining! (I am pretty certain that my reference letters were exceptional. Did that give me the leg up that I needed?)

I received full funding for tuition, fees, housing, meals, books, travel, plus an additional $10,000/yr stipend in the form of a fellowship for my MS. Happy. Relieved. Here's my original post on this thread (post #5): Posted 04 October 2014 - 03:03 AM Undergrad Institution: Big State Public, Top 10 Public for Engineering Major(s): Mechanical Engineering Minor(s): Yes, but I don't want to specify for privacy reasons. GPA in Major: 4.0 Overall GPA: 4.0 Length of Degree: 4 Years Position in Class: Top Type of Student: Domestic, Male, Non-URM GRE Scores: Q: 167 V: 170 W: 5.5 Research Experience: Will have 2 years of research with prof, plus one summer with prof. Awards/Honors/Recognitions: Several named scholarships from within school and/or department; 2 named scholarships/awards from outside of school; 4 departmental awards/recognitions. Pertinent Activities or Jobs: No pertinent activities or jobs within engineering. Some volunteer work with engineering student recruitment. Appointed to major leadership position for 4 years in on-campus, non-engineering activity. Any Miscellaneous Accomplishments that Might Help: Foreign language semi-proficiency. Applying for MS at: Just one Big State school.

I attended a big state school over an early acceptance to MIT for undergrad. I have rarely looked back, even though some people say I was crazy to turn down MIT. I have had huge opportunities at my undergrad school that may not have happened for me at MIT, simply because (I'm guessing) it's much easier to be a standout in an excellent big state school's engineering program than at MIT. But that's not why I chose the state school over the "prestige school" for undergrad. I chose the state school because they aggressively recruited me and made it very clear to me that their program was actually a perfect fit for me, and vice versa. They were correct. Certain folks inside and outside of the school and the engineering department took a big interest in me, professionally and personally. In addition, I was offered a free-ride plus a large annual stipend to attend. I have since read two studies that basically say that those who make college decisions like mine (and like yours, OP) tend to be happier in life and "more successful," if one chooses to define "success" by the output of the graduates once they enter the workplace (proportionately more awards, more publications, more recognized credentials, etc ... it varies dependent on the graduate's career field). Those who did the studies theorized that this may be due to the positive reinforcement and recognition tippy-top high students continue to receive throughout their "supposedly-less-prestigious" undergraduate programs, which is the same sort of recognition they experienced in high school, or better. In contrast, those who choose to attend "supposedly-more-prestigious" undergraduate programs can't all continue to excel and succeed in the same way that they did in high school. There are only so many top spots to go around at every school, and if nearly every student in an undergraduate program was at the top of the top in their high schools, well, SOME of those "top" students are going to find themselves in the middle or at the bottom! That becomes negative reinforcement for them, and they may start to see themselves in a less positive light. In other words, top high school students continue to see themselves at the top -- and others see them there, too -- in other great programs that are NOT necessarily considered the "most prestigious." Those top students continue to reap the rewards of their tippy top performance. But _the majority of_ top high school students who choose to attend (what are considered) the most prestigious schools will find themselves at places OTHER THAN the top, naturally. And that has its consequences. According to the two studies that I've read over the past few years, those at the top of ALL schools, "prestigious" and otherwise, tend to find themselves at the top of their career fields more often, statistically, AND they tend to define themselves as happier. In other words, according to both of these studies, graduating "at the top" from ANY school is supposedly more relevant to happiness and success than "merely" graduating from a prestigious school. I don't recall the names of the studies, and I don't know if I've done them justice in my synopsis. I also don't know if they've drawn the correct conclusions. But, they were very interesting to read! There are all sorts of rewards for being a top student. Scholarships and grants (equals no debt). The best offers for internships, research, study abroad, jobs. Personal attention from people inside and outside of the program. Etc. And therefore, there are more and more opportunities for top students at ALL schools to excel. Like you, OP, I will not be attending a "most prestigious" graduate school either. I will be attending a state school for grad school. That state school is widely recognized for "my" program, but there are several other schools that a lot of people find "more prestigious" in my field. I have chosen my grad school for the professor I want to work with and for that prof's lab. I think I will continue to have no regrets. I hope you can find satisfaction in your decisions, too. Don't worry about what others think. You're doing this for you. If the programs you chose are a good match for you and your interests, then you made all the right choices! Best of luck to you!

The title of this thread is 2015 Applicant Profiles and Results, so I guess I'll post my Results. My Profile is in post #5. I applied to only one school. It's a big state school that is pretty highly regarded in my area of expertise. I applied only to that one school because I am interested in working in a particular lab with a particular professor. Anyway, I have been admitted for Fall 2015. I am waiting for financial decisions which will come many months from now after all applicants have received their admission decisions. Best of luck to all!

Undergrad Institution: Big State Public, Top 10 Public for Engineering Major(s): Mechanical Engineering Minor(s): Yes, but I don't want to specify for privacy reasons. GPA in Major: 4.0 Overall GPA: 4.0 Length of Degree: 4 Years Position in Class: Top Type of Student: Domestic, Male, Non-URM GRE Scores: Q: 167 V: 170 W: 5.5 Research Experience: Will have 2 years of research with prof, plus one summer with prof. Awards/Honors/Recognitions: Several named scholarships from within school and/or department; 2 named scholarships/awards from outside of school; 4 departmental awards/recognitions. Pertinent Activities or Jobs: No pertinent activities or jobs within engineering. Some volunteer work with engineering student recruitment. Appointed to major leadership position for 4 years in on-campus, non-engineering activity. Any Miscellaneous Accomplishments that Might Help: Foreign language semi-proficiency. Applying for MS at: Just one Big State school.