Polisci_2016

Ugh! Sadly, this does not surprise me. I made it to the first round of interviews last year and interviewed a lot of past winners and finalists about their experiences and heard similar stories prior to the interview. I basically heard that the foundation wants people who they can put on posters and make them appear in a very specific way. I did not want to believe it, but when I got to the interview, I was forced to face reality. I thought I had made it to the interview process because of my accomplishments but when I got into the group interview, it became very clear that I was there to represent the “rags to riches” student archetype. In all honesty, I felt kind of used and still feel uncomfortable thinking about the interview. I knew I was there to provide the trauma story. Me, along with three or four other students in the zoom room. It felt like I was competing for the token trauma survivor role, which makes things really uncomfortable for a lot of reasons but the main being I try to lift people up who have experienced what I have been through, but it seemed like the interview process forced people of similar backgrounds to fight for the same tokenistic role. I know this happens elsewhere but it is still disheartening to say the least. I agree with the article in that the foundation creates a hostile environment for marginalized people. In my multi-hour long interview, I definitely felt the tension between wanting to be genuine and wanting to give the foundation what I knew they likely wanted.

Update on the interview: Unfortunately I was not selected to move forward. The interview was by far the most difficult interview I have ever participated in. In my correspondence with past winners, it seems as though they have drastically changed the interview format. I came in expecting to make a case for my research and fit with the program but I only spoke for one minute about my research and background and the rest of the time was spent in group activities. They were kind of like graduate-level seminars but with lots of people. I am assuming I did not make it forward because my anxiety kicked in on full gear and I basically blended into the background- that and I am am an utter luddite when it comes to technology and could not work the zoom set up to save my life. The first minute was spent introducing ourselves and if they repeat this format, they might do this again. I was instantly terrified by all the people who had written books and saved X number of people from X group in X place. For the anxious introverts out there who are interested in applying, I would encourage anyone to do so as it was a great experience. Also, remember that your research and view of the world are important and valid. Here is a breakdown of what happened during the interview. I hope it is able to help future applicants and puts some future applicants nerves at ease (although thing can always change but at least this provides people with some insight into how things might go down). Best of luck to those who were selected and all those who planning to apply next year! The first hour and 15 minutes: Introductions from every person there. There were around 20 people in the zoom room and four facilitators. We each took one minute to introduce ourselves and our research, and then the foundation gave a presentation. Then there was a three-minute break. Next 20 minutes: we were separated into three break-out rooms and given 90 seconds each to answer two questions. One was what value and belief we would never compromise, and the second question was how would you respond to someone who disagrees with you about that value. As a group, we had to identify the key themes discussed in the group and report back to the larger 18 person group. Next 30-40 minutes: the people from the three break-out groups came together and we spoke about what we had talked about. Next 30 minutes: we were given a case study about inequality and told to discuss the perspectives at play. Then we were separated into break-out rooms again to discuss key challenges in the case study and propose solutions. Next 40 minutes(ish): We then returned to the larger group and had a conversation about what we talked about in the break-out rooms. Next 10 minutes or so (the whole interview went a half-hour over the original three hours): Closing remarks.

Mine says: Review Phase 1 - Evaluation

Mine came in at 7:51pm and I live in Edmonton if that helps anyone

Congrats!

Ah, thank you so much! Here are my scores: Maximum review score: 101 Minimum review score: 101 Absolute difference score: 0 Average review Score: 101

It was a fairly generic email asking me to fill out a doodle poll for one of six interview spots

My stressed out sleep deprived brain is still trying to figure that out where to find the score

I just got my email saying I have been named semi finalist! I am completely shocked right now!

I hear around 100 for the first round and then around 30 for the second round of interviews. Then they select 16 winners.

I just submitted also! This is my first time applying, and I have no idea what to expect. During the info session, I heard that they had 700 people started applications, and they are only interviewing 100 people for the first interview, so figures crossed! I found the questions to be rather difficult, but I also found engaging in such a self-reflective process to be kind of fun. Either way, I am happy I applied. I hope to apply again next year if things do not turn out. I am curious to know what other people thought about the application process. I heard that it is significantly different from previous years.

Yep! Online, it says that they came up at 2:00pm but I never got a notification saying that they were up

Applicant from UofA. Second time applying. Last year, I was waitlisted with a score of 11.3/20. This year, I received a CGS with a score of 16.8/20 in Committee 5. I did not get a notification to check the website. I just checked it on a whim to see if I could put myself out of my misery. In all honesty, I thought my application from last year was much better. There were not many substantial differences in this year's application. The only thing I can think of is that this year, I used simpler language in the proposal. Also, in some cases, I used the exact same wording that SSHRC provides in their selection criteria page to describe my relevant experience (ex, "I demonstrated the ability to communicate theoretical and technical concepts by __" "I have engaged in teaching and mentoring by __"). I am so shocked by the change in scores, but I suppose this shows how subjective things are. Best of luck to all those who are still waiting!

Before I applied to grad school, I contacted a potential supervisor at U of A. They seemed really interested in my research and were super helpful in answering my questions about the program at U of A. Fast forward to now and I have been accepted into three other schools. However, I am really hoping to get into U of A. Should I contact this potential supervisor again inquiring about my application? If they know that I have been accepted into three other places, does this make my chances of getting into U of A better or worse? I have heard that if grad schools know that other grad schools want you, then they will try to give a more competitive offer later. Is this true?