commodork

Anyone know if we have any recourse at all in the event of one reviewer who was clearly... off? I got E/E E/E VG/F, with some serious BS feedback, including a "The applicant has no academic publications (I do, under review at the time) at her (I am a man) graduate institution yet." The reviewer also said I have little STEM/minority outreach, yet Reviewer 2 said "The candidate has been extensively involved in STEM outreach activates as both an UG and GR student. His commitment to STEM education is evident by his development of educational content for outreach activities, as well as an undergraduate mentor and a TA." and cited "consistent involvement/leadership with respect to STEM outreach." I'm under no pretenses that they'll just snap their fingers and give me an award, but anything that might affect position in the HM pile might be worthwhile for the low chance of late awards. Hell, it would be nice even just to get some sort of acknowledgment for peace of mind. It's a really crappy feeling knowing it came down to dumb luck with a bad reviewer. EDIT: And congrats to all the winners - such an honor and you guys and girls all deserve it.

Would really appreciate that! Would be helpful to look at a proposal with actual feedback (imnotbitterreallyiswear).

Man, no luck. VG/VG VG/VG VG/VG. I feel like I got kinda screwed on reviewers. All 3 only gave 1-2 sentences of feedback on each category, and so vague that I wonder if they even read the whole thing. Here's my verbatim feedback from Reviewer 3 (it's always #3) in its entirely, for example: Intellectual Merit: VG "Adequate academic preparation. Very good work/ research experience" Broader Impacts: VG "Image processing can only go so far in helping tumor detection" Summary: "Mr. Commodork is qualified, but not in the first tier of candidates" What am I supposed to make of that??? Last year, I got very in depth paragraphs and comments on specific activities. I thought I made my personal way stronger, but I'm not sure now. Did my reviewers just get lazy and burnt out, or was my app that much more forgettable this time around? My CV got way stronger between cycles, so I'm kind of at a loss.

It's AMAZING. I tried that one too. It's very very worth tracking down. I'm a sucker for anything oatmeal or nitro, though, so it pushed all my buttons.

It is sort of, but I figured I might as well splurge given the occasion. I'll have to try the Coop, that sounds right up my alley. I actually visited the Founder's brewery a few weeks ago and tried their Kentucky Breakfast Stout, which was actually trancendental. It's super hard to track down, but I really recommend it.

RE: the subject of therapy beer. I settled on Founder's Centennial IPA, and I have no regrets. What'd everyone else settle on?

feel like you should have gotten a pink one

Good luck! Rooting for you!

Fantastic. You're probably in a much better position this year since you took that angle and addressed it head on. Lord knows there are no shortage of hurdles.

That sucks a lot, I'm sorry. Here's some advice that you won't need because you're going to get it this year and won't be re-applying: address your GPA directly and spin it into a positive. NSF loves a "triumphed over adversity." Talk about why that C happened and how you came back from it. Most people take physics early on, so chances are your academics improved to wind up with a 3.3. If you can wrap it into a compelling narrative of how you succeeded because of your drive to go to grad school and do research, it'll not only not hurt you, but it will help you stand out. Of course you might've already done this and plus you don't need my advice cuz you've totally got this, but just a good general thing for anyone in our situation to keep in mind. You don't necessarily need to run from a GPA that was a bit bumpy at first.

GPA matters way way less than you'd think, especially if you have solid research experience (which it sounds like you do). I applied as an undergrad last year with a GPA that wasn't much higher (~3.5) and got HM, so it's not like they have hard cutoffs or anything like that. If they can point to your research experience and say "yeah. his/her grades could have been better, but look at all this cool stuff they were doing" then it certainly won't break you.

I was thinking about it and it seems like maybe not changing could be a good sign, since the bottom tier of applications don't get a third reviewer and so would be done sooner? Realistically, I'm sure it either doesn't mean anything or was just a reddit troll, but I'm just telling myself these things to make it to 6AM at this point.

Personally, I've been obsessed with Fat Head's Head Hunter IPA lately, if you're looking for a great IPA with a highish ABV.

I don't know about you, but a couple stouts can put me out like a light. That's my plan (but I doubt it'll work). EDIT: woops, quoted wrong comment here. Meant to respond to @Humulus_lupulus above me.

Are you headed to Vanderbilt? I did my undergrad there. It's amazing and you will love it.

Thanks for your perspective! I had no idea there were faculty members on this site as well, neat. I have a few questions, if you don't mind me taking the chance to pick your brain. How much impact, if any, does receipt of NSF-GRFP/other prestigious fellowships affect faculty hires, in your experience? I saw something a while back that said GRFP recipients were way more likely to land TT positions (though that's probably more correlation than causation). Any application advice? Thank you!

You forgot to take into account that it's a leap year, so we should get it a day earlier than that

Here's hoping NSF pulls a Beyoncé and sends out emails with zero warning at midnight tonight. I can't take it much longer.

Heh, was that the thread titled "Does anybody else just remember the NSF GRFP exists in the middle of the day out of nowhere and feel like they're suddenly on fire"?

First year grad students - any chance the change in NSF GRFP eligibility might work out in our favor next year? Since there will be a smaller pool of students applying (fewer first years)? Probably just wishful thinking, because I'm pretty sure I've heard that they evaluate applicants only within the same year group.

Well, partially to be able to start on my thesis research sooner. Also, I like the security and certainty that comes with having an advisor that really wants you from the beginning. But it may be good for me since I'm so indecisive. Idk.

Hi all. Pursuing a BME Ph.D. somewhere within the realm of medical imaging or image analysis and currently wracked with indecision. WashU (https://bme.wustl.edu/graduate/phd/Pages/default.aspx) Pros: Highest ranked of the three Great med school Strong affiliated imaging faculty Generous Stipend Cons: Rotations (I'd really rather not do them) No strong connections with professors so far Farthest from home Case Western (https://engineering.case.edu/ebme/) Pros: Offer from established professor doing some amazing work in image analysis Great medical school access Research in field that I already have some experience in Cons: Busier PI Cleveland Seems like an intense lab atmosphere (which has its pros and cons) Carnegie Mellon (https://www.cmu.edu/bme/Academics/Graduate Programs/phd_program.html) Pros: New professor doing work in optics - more facetime and guidance Very strong engineering school Ability to carve my own path PI is very well connected despite being new Cons: Lowest ranked BME program Potential risks of new professor Probably limits opportunities in academia Very indecisive about all of this. It's tough making a decision without being positive what I 100% want to do or whether I'd prefer to be on the computation or hardware side of things.

To those of you who spend a majority of your Ph.D. in front of a computer, how do you like it? Does it get monotonous? Do you still feel like you're able to bring creativity to your work and innovate? I'm particularly interested in hearing from anyone who might have experience in more experimental research and made a switch towards primarily programming. Do you miss having "hands-on" research experience? I'm currently debating such a switch, and it's tough to decide without any insight into what the day-to-day is like.

What're everyone's thoughts on new faculty? I know the standard "avoid at all costs" cliche, but was wondering if anyone had any experience or could offer some deeper insight. Right now I've pretty much narrowed things down to a brand new faculty member or a much more seasoned PI that I would probably see much less of, and I'm feeling pretty lost at the moment.

I'll probably put it on mine, especially since I still have 2 more application rounds left.