uku

Thank you for the information. With any luck I will be in a program and won't be eligible again next time around but there are a few things I am curious about, if you are free to comment on them. If not I totally understand. I was a "2 years interruption" applicant - One reviewer referred to me as level 4 applicant - is that the term? What are the guidelines for people in my category compared to grad students? I am curiousI got a E/E and VG/VG from two reviewers who seemed to think I was well prepared and had demonstrated a dedication to outreach, but the third gave me a F/G and noted my undergrad research experience wasn't exceptional (despite mentioning grad outputs were good). Disparity left me rather confused and wondering what the reviewers were looking for. Also, regarding BI - i laied out detailed ways my proposal would benefit society, mgmt of federally controlled parks, and I would provide research opportunities to undergrads, but two reviewers really seemed to like on to one sentence about K-12 education plans, it was the primary thing they mentioned in reviews. Any particular reason for the emphasis on that?

Yes you aren't the only one. But I think it is natural, after spending a lot of time on something that could improve your career and really change your academic life for the better, anticipating for months and then not getting it? You are allowed to mourn for a bit. But don't be discouraged! Use it as motivation to plan and work that much harder at your research!

To please my reviewer three, you would need absolute top tier research outputs as a first year grad student. I haven't been an undergrad for 6 years and while my work in grad school was recognized, 3 still took the time to say " non-competitive research experience as undergraduate; " as en entire one third of their IM review

Looks like we had the same reviewer three

I didn't get it - 'two year interuption since M.S.' group - not recommended. E/E, VG/VG, F/G. I think it would easier to swallow if it wasn't for the huge range in reviewer scores! That is were the Z score are supposed to come in though I suppose. still hard to reconcile almost every review and every category! e.g. " The hypotheses are well thought out (interesting in the case of positive or negative results) and formulated," & "research plan not hypothesis driven" good luck to everyone yet to check!

Oh cool I am glad I posted. I wonder how we are compared to other 1st and 2nd yr grad students given there could have been a bit of extra time to get some publications etc out. One area I am sort of concerned is where we were asked to explain the circumstances - I didn't go into much detail, I am not sure if they are expecting a thorough discussion of why there was a gap. I did use the opportunity though to discuss why the gap was a positive and allowed me to get some solid BI type work started. Good luck to you too!

My approach after realizing they would expect an IM heading, yet the entire proposal probably couldn't just be one large IM section: My background info for the proposal and its details/methods/objectives were explained and I used an intellectual merit section to describe the importance of the results, how it would advance the research on the topic, how it would integrate multiple fields, and what important theoretical and fundamental questions were being asked. Also how my particular background and skillset would be applicable to the problem, and how it was a rigorous, cutting edge project that would expand my skillset as a platform for a career in the field. At least that is what I told the reviewers.

Good luck everyone. I am applying under the 'two years of interruption' since obtaining M.S., and have never come across someone receiving an award under that loophole. We shall see in six hours!