sat0ri

Hypothetically, yes, but realistically, it is extremely unlikely. I think them saying 1.5-2 times people are recommended compared to how many grants are actually available is most applicable to grants where there is a relatively large number of grants. Last cycle I was also recommended, interviewed, and ultimately was only an alternate for the UK open award (2 awards / 165 applicants). However, there were 3 others on grad cafe that were recommended (not interviewed), and none of us were selected for the grant. Further, I doubt they only interviewed 3 people for 2 awards. At any rate that's at least 6 people in the running (3 times as many people recommended compared to awards available), but it is very likely the it was an even higher number than that.

Oh very cool. There is some continuity and hopefully that experience makes you that much stronger of an applicant!

Hey, IIRC you applied to Africa last year (and ended up getting funding with Nat Geo?). How'd you decide on Indonesia this round? I'm just curious

It might pick up once the first notifications are sent out, when people become a bit more invested in how their applications turn out. In fact, last year, I didn't even know grad cafe existed until only after I got the first notifications, which sent me frantically searching on the internet for more information and hence finding this place. Also there is a lot more speculation going on then because the subsequent notification dates between the different countries are vastly different.

Has anyone heard any information on the interview panel members? I'm dying of suspense.

Much of my undergraduate and post-bacc work has been centered around peptide chemistry, though I do have experience in general solution phase chemistry. Will this type of experience look worse than someone coming from more general synthetic chemistry backgrounds? I ask because sometimes peptide chemistry is known as the 'red-headed step child' in part because much of the chemistry revolves around coupling/acylation reactions. With that said, my application is very strong. Excellent GPA, scores, awards, publications/presentations, and generally extensive lab experience.

Has everyone sent in their CV's and cover photos? I thought I'd say something because the deadline is coming up, but I'm sure this group has no problem keeping deadlines.

Since 100 people are invited to interview, 40 are offered the scholarship, and there are 4 section, I wonder how they distribute the number of grants between disciplines? My guess is that they interview about 20-25 from each of the four disciplines/categories, and a little less than half of the interviewees are offered a grant, so that an equal number of grants are given to each category (4 categories x 10 grants = 40 scholarships). I guess it could be possible that certain sections have more grants to award and so this might not be right.

I also thought it was a bit challenging writing a proposal for studying in the UK as an American, because their culture is one of the most similar to American culture. However, some current events (e.g., Brexit, Trump administration, etc) have made it all the more relevant in my opinion. @Horb I believe you were applying to UK, did you find that part challenging?

Right, and I did acknowledge all of this in my previous comment ("There are obviously ways to do this with STEM research projects--for example, a leading researcher, facilities, industry connections--but again, tying this into cultural exchange instead of why it will be good for you and your career can be challenging") but it is not a career development program in its intents; it is fundamentally about cultural exchange. You could come up with a thousand examples of how to integrate STEM disciplines into cultural exchange--and this has literally been done by Fulbright over the years--but I am saying there is general trend is that the humanities, by virtue of being a central and inextricable part of the culture itself, therefore naturally and inherently lends itself to being culture exchange. Most of the times humanities are focused on culture and Fulbright is about cultural exhange (not necessarily academic excellence, like many other scholarships), so I just think it's a more natural fit for humanities projects. I'm applying with a STEM proposal after all, I am just saying relatively speaking, finding the nexus to your host country isn't as straightforward. Sure there could be these counterexamples (faculty, facilities, techniques, etc) but I'd say 90% of chemist, biologist, neuroscientist could perform some iteration of their work in nearly any country, so identifying the necessity of a certain country is relatively more challenging than explaining why you want to study French literature in France/French colony--not necessarily because of text/facilities/faculties being available, but rather because it would be more immersive to study in the environment where the literature was produced. I'd say this is a fair point. I should have specified the so-called "hard sciences". I also think your example is very interesting; but I think the issue you raised is my point. Sociology, something that is focused on the study of societies and cultures, will naturally lend itself to making a more facile connection with the host country when it comes to a program like Fulbright. If I was interested in stem cell biology, justifying it why I want to study in Turkey vs Peru could be more challenging. Not impossible, just more challenging relative to if I wanted to propose a project studying Peruvian culture in some way.

EDIT: I think this is an interesting topic; I'm not trying to stir anyone's blood, just a friendly discussion will we wait for some results. Fulbright states a main component of successful applications is having compelling justification of why you want to travel to a specific location, why you couldn't possibly go anywhere other than the university you selected. The vast majority of scientific research is being conducted independently by many lab groups across the globe, so justifying the necessity that you go to a particular university can be challenging if you're basing it on the research project alone (because far more often than not, you could conduct similar research at other places in the world). Further, rarely is scientific research contingent on the place it is located and it is almost never "cultural" (science is supposed to be objective by definition). For example, synthesizing a new antibiotic will be the same in an Australian chemistry lab as it will be in a French chemistry lab; there is nothing about Australian or French culture that would make one location better than the other, necessarily. Naturally, I can think of a few exceptions where the location of the lab might be important (studying an endemic species, ecosystem, geography, etc), but I can think of a great many more cases where the location of the laboratory won't influence your work in any way. Compared to a humanities project, if you are proposing studying Italian history or French literature, making a case of why you should go to Italy or France respectively becomes much, much more straightforward. There are obviously ways to do this with STEM research projects--for example, a leading researcher, facilities, industry connections--but again, tying this into cultural exchange (instead of why it will be good for you and your career) can be difficult when compared to the humanities. I'd say the trade off is, like @describeblue first brought up, justifying the importance/urgency of, say, developing a new cancer drug can be easier than justifying why you want to study postmodern Spanish art. I guess I think there are differences between securing funding between STEM and humanities projects, which I think is true for the Fulbright as well considering the importance that is placed on the culture and location of where you conduct the research.

I'm interviewing with the physical sciences panel. What about you? The interview is slated for Washington DC but I think I might Skype. My university stated they could likely support my travel but I would need to fill out paperwork to confirm. However since Gates is requiring I state whether I will Skype or go in person by Monday/Sunday -- before I will know whether travel funding is approved -- I think I'm going to play it safe and Skype for the interview. The trip would cost $500 (+/-) and that's a lot of money to drop for a 25 minute interview. I've also already have been to the DC area.

USA applicant. Also received the interview invite today. I'm elated but guarded. Anyone conflicted over whether to skype vs go in person?

Yeah agreed, without a doubt (hence the great many STEM-based proposals). I just thought that art/humanities lends itself more to making a compelling case for cultural exchange aspect, generally. I do think @describeblue brings up a good point about creating a "sense of urgency" can be more straightforward with science-based projects. I guess this is reminiscent of the classic divide between procuring funding in science vs the humanities.

Great answer, thanks!

Is there a reason why? Fulbright is primarily a cultural exchange program, so to me that seems like that would lend itself to more artistic projects, as a broad swath science can be (arguably) done any well suited lab regardless of the country/location. (Maybe this is just me being overly concerned about how adequate my justification was for my host country.)

Hey I just wanted to allay any concerns you might have over whether our experiences are comparable. For me, they wanted a separate research statement (despite me inputting my statement in 2 other places) for my application--and I'm entirely grateful they reached out to me, because it is stated on the Gates webpage that ensuring all materials are received is our responsibility. That said, it is not clear whether or not they notified me because something was missing or because that is the modus operandi of this particular department or because of the shortlistin per se. I will say that I think you being accepted by the department this early (usually notifications aren't sent out for another ~6 months) certainly seems to be a good sign.

Awesome. Great information for all. And of course, congratulations! Were you applying as an American btw? I looked through previous years, and it seems they sent out a tweet in mid-December that all candidates have been chosen or notified, but I believe the formal rejection came later. On Thursday (11/17/2016) I received an email from the department of chemistry saying I was one of XXX number of applicants who were being nominated to be evaluated. Thought I'd add that in case anyone else was curious for this cycle. I'm very guarded though as a dramatic amount of people are eliminated each round of the competition.

Do you remember the timeline more precisely by any chance? E.g., what month where you accepted by the department, invited to interview, and offered gates. My friend was an immigrant to America (where I'm located) so he applied to the to the international round--hence the timeline is different--but I do recall he was offered the gates like 1-2 weeks after his interview. That is to say, that part is very fast

Ok I'll go over to that thread so there's not multiple threads

Thank you! Being that close just made it so much more painful to ultimately be rejected though, haha. This time around I'm a bit more guarded, a bit less optimistic.

Yeah, I was an interviewed alternate candidate for the UK open award last year. I remember not receiving a notification until mid-January last year and so I definitely had a momentary "I got rejected very early this year"-thought.

Personally, I think the spread sheet is an awesome resource. Notifications won't be sent out for a long time though.

I think Photogeo is the only person I'm rooting for more than myself! I'll be throwing my hat in again for UK open award again (just going to sleep on my statement a few more nights); hopefully things won't be so painful this cycle.

Hey you seem lonely here! Has there been any duplicate threads on this? Yeah I struggled with the word count -- I think the character limit is 3,000 though, right? I'm guessing the 3,000 = ~500 words is based on conversational speech, and not the bombastic words we like to throw into these essays and impress reviewers. I also had a question - does the Gates committee review other parts of our application besides the designated gates statement? It would certainly be helpful abridging portions of the statement if I know they'll see the information in other places on my app