littlemoondragon
-
Posts
59 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by littlemoondragon
-
-
Exactly what everyone has said so far! As long as you explain your transition, you're good to go. My BS was in mathematics and physics and I switched to statistics. My program of choice accepted me as well as winning scholarships and fellowships that required me explaining my transition. You're golden!
-
My boss is sick today. :/ I will ask him later this week. Sorry everyone!
-
Hi Everyone! I know this topic has been a big concern. I work for my university's Grants and Fellowships Office under the Graduate School, where I mostly help graduate students apply for the NSF GRFP. Here is some info that echoes some posts and hopefully help ease minds.
Also, I am actually meeting my boss tomorrow, and will ask him about this issue further. I will update the information below tomorrow night once I know.
Edit: The reason I want to ask my boss is because he has been attending all of the NSF GRFP Program Manager's webinars and I'm sure he has asked his question. If he doesn't know, I recommend contacting the program manager. Part of the manger's job is to answer any questions concerning the award.
- Causes for application returned without review: Common causes are essay formatting, missing letters, etc. These issues are addressed usually within the month, so applicants have been told well before the essays are seen by reviewers.
-
Why the separate headers? NSF GRFP has increasingly become more competitive and there is a huge demand for reviewers. Based on last year's cycle, reviewers are looking at a stack of 50 or so applications. Having sections makes it easier for reviewers to read through your essays.
- As an aside...most reviewers are lazy. You need to "spoon feed" them why you are awesome with headers and everything. I tell applicants all the time you basically have to smack the reviewers upside the head, "I'm awesome! YOU HEAR ME! I'm SO awesome, GIVE ME MONEY!"
- Does this mean those who haven't could still win? Maybe. As said before, the NSF GRFP is becoming more and more competitive. The likelihood that someone has similar qualities to you, but followed the BI and IM headers is high. Reviewers are fickle and not consistent. Your application is given to three people to review (who may or may not be in your field!). Some might "forget" about the headers and review as normal. Some might remember and give more points to those who had the headers. Some might provide comments that they saw your essay and didn't see headers. Since there is no standardize way to integrate headers (NSF didn't specify at all how they wanted them such as should headers be bold or centered), this seems to be more on making the reviewers' lives easier.
- How do reviewers decide? I made a webpage on applying for the NSF GRFP with a section on the review process.(http://www.clairemckaybowen.com/fellowships.html#reviewer)
Good luck!
- knp and TongueSten
-
2
-
I officially submitted my application. Now the waiting game. ><
-
Here are my notes from the webinar:
GRIP NOTES
Program Director: Erick C. Jones
Division of Graduate Education National Science Foundation
Focus of GRIP: Engage and participate in the work being conducted in the federal agency, which may or may not involve dissertation. However, GRIP must contribute to your graduate research work.
Eligibility:
· Active GRFP Fellow
· Completed at least one year of graduate school by the time you applied for GRIP.
· At least 12 months left of the GRFP active funds.
New Agencies This Year: US Census, US Geological, and NOAA
Current list is the only ones available for the December 4th deadline.
Can I apply to collaborate with a scientist from a country or agency not listed? No
Benefits:
· $5,000 for just travel
· Additional funds from agency
· Funds can be used for living expenses
Can I still get GROW or GRIP support if I’m “on tenure”? Yes, but some GRIP agencies might not have additional support beyond GRFP.
Skills Gained:
· Presentation
· Project management
· Networking
Other Benefits:
· Resources Available – field sites, collaborations, etc.
· “Step in the door”
Timeline:
· 4 to 6 months of review
Finding a Host Researcher(s): Really dependent on the agency.
· Consult the agency webpages (sometimes not available)
· Ask advisor, other faculty, postdocs, graduate students, etc.
· Read the literature in your field
Application Components:
· Coversheet
· Project Summary
· Project Description
· References
· Budget/Budget Justification
· Biographical Sketch (Fellow)
· Letter of Endorsement (Advisor) – progress toward degree
· AOR Form (signed) Most important part to finish early!
Extra Answers
Slots Available:
December 4th is for summer allocation, but can be for others.
More than one intern can be selected, depending on host.
-
2 hours ago, farflung said:
Oh good, someone to commiserate with about GRIP! I attended the first webinar last week. During the webinar, I asked a few times in different ways about the host agencies, website issues, and general lack of clarity around what internships are actually available (especially for qualitative social scientists... hey NSF, we do exist and you do actually fund us!).
Here's a summary: Website issues will be fixed soon. Keep checking agency websites. Definitely contact a host researcher you're interested in working with, especially if the website info is vague or not there (sounds like you've done this!). Host agencies are still finalizing the opportunities they want to offer, but they REALLY want NSF interns and so researchers are knocking down the door trying to make those opportunities available. More new & different internship opportunities-- including partnerships with new agencies -- will be available after the new year, in time for the March deadline. The program will only be growing in the future.
No idea how many of the above reassurances by NSF are actually true. They seem supremely disorganized this application cycle, which is unfortunate because it seems like a wonderful opportunity for those of us GRFPers pursuing a non-academic career path. I wanted to apply for the December deadline (with a summer 2015 start date) but will not be able to, because there are simply not enough info on opportunities relevant to my skills and interests. Fortunately the March deadline (with a fall 2016 start date) is workable for me, so I'll go for that instead.
COMMISERATE!
NSF does seem disorganized. :( I was sadden by the lack of government labs since NSF states that they work with them, but none are listed as a host agency.
As for the webinar: one of the things I wanted to ask was what was allowed on the budget. Since DC area is so expensive, I wasn't sure if I could add rent to the list. My friend who applied to GROW the first year could, but it has different requirements for the budget. I know the budget cannot supplement/support our stipend, but I am not sure to what extent they mean.
In addition, I was told by the host agency contact to not contact anyone to be my potential host researcher(s). This caused some confusion, because NSF page says you need to work with your host researcher(s) on how you will interact for the professional development part of the application. I had to make some general statements in my application.
I plan to apply for the December 4th deadline and see how it works. I didn't think there was a March deadline for this application year. I saw the December and May one, but not March. I know last year there was a March. Is this a typo on the website?
I'll report my findings as well after today's webinar.
-
I am currently applying for GRIP. I encountered the same issues as you. For instance, U.S. Census Bureau (the agency I want to apply for) had conflicting information to the NSF GRIP info page about the involvement of the host researcher(s). I ended up contacting the contact and hashed out the issues.
I couldn't attend today's webinar, but I hope to attend tomorrows. Have you attended today's?
-
How important is the "With the resources provided by the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship, I will" sentence/paragraph? Mine is 5 lines long and right now I am 7 lines over the 3 page limit on my personal statement. Overall, I feel like it isn't very compelling and everyone says something along the same lines, so I could just completely remove it?
Typically, in my office (Grants and Fellowships), we suggest applicants to write about 1 to 2 sentences on "How will the NSF GRF help you with your career goals?". The answer is required in your personal statement, but, as you said, everyone will have similar answers ranging from needing more financial assistance to using the recognition to complete certain goals. As further proof, on my application and other people I have helped win, we used 1-2 sentences.
I hoped this helped. Good luck!
-
The NSF is definitely interested in its fellows pursuing science policy careers. One of the main perks of the fellowship is that it offers professionalization opportunities NOT oriented toward academic research -- for example, the GRIP (Graduate Research Internship Program) which places NSF fellows in government research and policy positions. Also, science policy is a classic example of "broader impacts" criteria, so your desire (and plans -- always make sure to list concrete plans, no obligation to follow thru) to contribute to policy enhances the potential broader impacts of your application.
(PS - I'm a GRFP grantee now)
This! Definitely! Also another point: imagine you are reviewing around 50 applications, where most of the applicants have stated they wanted to pursue the traditional academic route. Then, you have someone who wants a career in science policy. Being different makes you stand out, which helps with being memorable in a stack of around 50 applications.
GOOD LUCK! -
Anyone know if we can add headers/footers to our statements? I can't find anything about it on the solicitation form...
Down to the final edits
A few others and I (recipients of NSF GRFP) added headers that were within the 1" margin requirement. However, these headers were our names, page number, and statement name ("Personal Statement" or "Graduate Research Proposal" NOT research title). Anything else such as information that adds to your statements (e.g. references), would disqualify you because the text is against formatting requirements.
-
I'm a second year graduate student, and found out a paper I helped with a year ago has a "revise and resubmit" status. Should I list this on my application if this is my only publication so far?
Yes, list any publication you are in progress, submitted, or under review. You want to demonstrate to the reviewers that you understand and can "endure" the rigors of research from the data collection and analysis to presenting your work at a conference and publishing the findings. If your paper hasn't been accepted yet, ask a letter writer who has worked with you on a manuscript to talk about your work ethic in completing research.
-
There seems to be a lot of resources offered on the thread. For those who do not want to comb through the posts, here is what I remember (in order of appearance):
- Mallory Ladd: http://www.malloryladd.com/nsf-grfp-advice.html
- GRFP Essay Insights: http://grfpessayinsights.missouri.edu/index.php
- Mine: http://www.clairemckaybowen.com/fellowships.html
- Alex Lang: http://www.alexhunterlang.com/nsf-fellowship
- Louis Tse: http://ltse1.bol.ucla.edu/nsf.html
- sn2 and VulpesZerda
-
2
-
You're not alone! I'm about half way through both personal statement and research proposal drafts. They are shaping up nicely but still need much work (and revisions!)
Does anyone have any statistics they would like to share regarding success rate in the various fields?
I don't have any solid evidence, but I discussed this some with another winner over the summer. She said that while biology and engineering have the highest percentage of winners over the 2,000 awarded, it is representative of the percent of incoming applications. This means the smallest categories like statistics, the proportion of those who won in statistics out of those who didn't is the same as biology. Again, this was a discussion and I have no proof.
-
Great tip! I never thought of that. So some general advice for finding useful examples:
- I've put together a table with all the examples I found. I also have given my general advice on applying.
- @coffee_grad's email tip (past winners here)
- Local resources at your college. Most schools have some writing / application advisors. Or you can start with the experienced person list.
Good luck everyone
Number 4 is underutilized! I used the experienced person list to find a past winner, currently director of a large group on campus. He provided excellent advise and also reviewed my statements, meeting with me multiple times.
-
Hi,
Well, guessing by your name, you graduated from Idaho (I did too). This hurts your chances in some cases since the Idaho universities are all unranked and considered tier 4 for research. I was told by a friend who went to University of Washington and Harvard (both are ranked #3 in statistics) that despite my academic record, research history, and STEM outreach the fact I graduated from Idaho would almost disqualify me to attend Harvard.
On that note, you should expand your selection. Your GPA is low for some of the universities you picked. Two of the universities (Washington and Chicago) are the top five ranked, Columbia is top 20, and Colorado is also ranked. I think at least R2. This makes the selection process for applicants more competitive, and these universities will have a higher pool of people with GPA of 3.7 or higher.
Also, if you are going for the top programs, you want your letters of recommendation to be very strong. What supports your claims in your personal statement, describes how you are in the classroom more than your transcript can, and reflect on your performance while you worked as a data analyst are those letters.
In the end, unless you are a golden child, package yourself well on applications gets you into top programs. However, with your GPA being lower, graduating from a unranked undergraduate, and your letters only being decent, you will have a very hard time getting into some of the places you listed such as Washington and Chicago.
-
This almost seems silly to say, but I recommend that you select to request LOR from those who actually know you well. There is a big difference in the type of letter someone (presumably very busy) will write for you whether you were some random lab rat working on a project on which they were the PI, or someone you worked with collaboratively and had honest dialogue about personal, academic, and research endeavors. I see a lot of students trying to get a letter from someone whose name looks very nice on a piece of paper, but NSF wants to know more about who you are as a person and how you have the tools to be successful.
For the record, my LOR come from:
1) UG mentor, professor, and research PI: Someone who knows my academic achievements, research capability, and personal life
2) Program director/boss that I worked with for 1 year through co-op program in UG: Someone who works in an industry related to my research goals, who knows my work ethic and personality, and who can support my claims of career goals
3) My graduate adviser, professor, and research PI: Someone who knows my current interests, discipline, research goals, career goals, and personal lifeI agree for the most part that you want someone who knows you well. The better the writer knows you, they better letter they can write. It is obvious to reviewers if the writer doesn't know you well.
The only reason I suggested reviewing over the personal statement and then deciding who to be your LoR is because when I first applied, I asked the professors who knew me well. My most recent REU advisor saw me four times (total of 3 hours), so I didn't ask him. However, my negative remarks on my first GRFP application were on why didn't I have a REU advisor write a letter when I had done so many (I had done three). Granted, given I had three REUs, I should have had at least one REU letter writer. But I had three other people who knew me better and wrote very strong letters. This is where GRFP is a crap shoot. What reviewers like vesus not is random.
Think of your entire packet, and then figure someone will take around 5 minutes to read it all. Write accordingly.
Use of bolding and underlining to highlight important sections is highly suggested, and can be quite beneficial towards drawing attention to what you really want the reviewers to see.
The section topics really helps breaking up the huge block texts.
Edit: apparently I can't write when traveling...
and I added more explanation. -
Echoing what everyone else said, it is normal. I asked my advisor to write a letter of recommendation within the first month of starting. So no worries!
-
I don't think you have a problem here at all. The NSF is a fellowship awarded to you as a person, not for a specific research project, even though you have to write essays about a specific research project. However, you will encounter later fellowship applications that are for a specific research project and you will see that they are very different.
TakeruK is correct! The NSF is a fellowship awarded to you as a person, not for a specific research project.
The only thing NSF would be upset about is after you have been awarded is switching institutions (which does happen, but you have to explain) or switching fields.
-
Hi all!
I was wondering if I could get some advice on LORs. I have my first 2 letters set (as well as a standby). I am a bit torn as to who the 3rd letter should come from. I could either ask the PI from a previous REU (last summer), or my program director. I've read that if you have previous external research experience you should get a letter from that advisor, unfortunately I'm unsure if he knows me well enough to strongly speak to the BI aspects of my application. I'm already getting a letter from the advisor of my most recent REU, and I'm worried it might look suspicious if I don't get one from this guy. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
It depends on what you wrote on your personal statements. Your LORs are the only part of the application that can vouch your claims in your personal statement. If you spoke a lot about your REU, it would look odd to be missing a letter from your REU advisor. In addition, it is good to have writers outside of your institution talk about your abilities, stating how you understand the rigors of research by their university's/department's standard. Furthermore, you do not need your letter writers to vouch both Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts in depth. The people I asked were: 1. my graduate advisor, 2. a collaborator from another institution, and 3. my undergraduate advisor.
- Graduate advisor talked about how I was conducting research so far.
- Collaborator talked about our work together and how we published a paper (graduate career).
- Undergraduate advisor talked about my hard work in courses and all the STEM Outreach we did together.
I specifically choose those three to balance out all aspects NSF GRFP reviewers would look for. When asking for LORs, I told the writers what I wanted them to emphasize more based on what I wrote in my statements (in addition to giving them the guidelines for the GRFP). If it makes you feel better about asking someone who doesn't know you "well", I have never met my second letter writer or even talked to him over the phone before. We worked on a three projects over four months, spent two months writing a paper, and had the paper accepted. However, because of our email communication and the results from our research, he could talk about what kind of researcher I am.
-
While I am not in biostats, I know that University of Michigan and Harvard are Bayesian friendly schools. (Source: My advisor is a Bayesianist and graduated from University of Michigan under Roderick Little and a friend graduate from Harvard). The same friend that graduate from Harvard also received her undergraduate from University of Washington (UW). I initially thought UW was a Bayesian friendly department, but I saw your other post and cyberwulf said otherwise. I am unsure now.
Another place is Duke University. Jerry Reiter is a big name in Duke's statistics department and he does Bayesian Statistics - he was a student of Ruben from Harvard.
-
Hi, I know I'm late, and I am echoing what the other two posters said. But, I also switched from physics to statistics. I didn't report my physics GRE and the places I applied to never asked me. The statistics program was happy that I had previous research experience (all physics), which was more than the average statistics applicant.
-
Look into University of Michigan and University of Washington. Both have a specific Biostatistics program that are top notch. I have many colleagues that vouch for both programs.
-
Since you are unsure about which field in statistics to be in, you would want to be in a larger statistics program that has a wide variety of research. Here are top programs in statistics that have a wide range of research.
University of Washington
University of Michigan
Duke
Harvard
Stanford
The only issue with these programs is that they are very competitive. Your GPA might be too low, but you depending on how you pitch your application you can still get into a great program regardless of GPA.
-
Hi everyone! I wanted to pay it forward from all the help I received online, so here is a page I made about applying for the NSF GRFP. There are a lot of other websites that provide great tips and tricks as well such as the one that is listed on the front page of the thread (http://bit.ly/1ScBFob). Take advantage!
How much harder to get into PhD program that wasn't your undergrad major?
in The Lobby
Posted
I don't think you need a history degree to be a program director/outreach director in a science museum. The director of the Bradbury Museum at Los Alamos, NM has her BS in Biology and Geology and a MS in Geology (paleontology emphasis). However, I haven't looked into at all how to become a program director/outreach director of a science museum, so maybe there is something one must do in addition?