Rails111

This is like waiting for Santa. You just went to bed and know he isn't coming for hours, but you still think about it every five seconds. The worst part is that thinking about Santa keeps you from falling asleep and makes it take longer to get the gifts.

The main difference is 90% of us will get coal.

THE excel file!!!! Heyoooo

I'm just messing with you all. April Fools a few days late.

Though I agree that seeing some type of statistical pattern in successful applicants would indeed have some impact (hence I am not opposed to posting mine)-- I fully see that the impact would be either comforting (if we see ourselves fitting into the pattern) or devastating (if not). And in agreement with the above posters, neither comfort or lack thereof should discourage students from applying-- especially if they need the money to complete their desired education.

Also, I think it's been proven that this process is not number-based in any shape or form. Students who win the award have GPAs that range from 3.0 to 4.0, 0 to 10 publications, and so on. Even the rating sheets given by the GRFP panel itself seems to have little predictability. A friend of mine with no "excellent" ratings was able to win an award, while another with several E/E or E/VGs got HM. This is my first and only time applying, and I made new contacts and re-forged many old relationships through just preparing the proposal. I'm gonna really try to continue psyching myself into believing that this is all just a learning experience, and that anything beyond what I have right now is bonus. :strains:

yeah...there's this little part of me that doesn't even want to find out.

Yeah, same here, except for the GRE. I've never done well on standardized exams; had trouble breaking 1000 the first time around. I read about the GRFP from (at least) 40 different sources before applying and spoke with around 20 past panelists. They all pretty much said the same thing...this fellowship is funding the person so, hypothetically, if there are two people they're deciding between, then the one who has lower scores will get chosen IF his/her broader impacts are substantially stronger. I was kind of a creep and looked at a bunch of current grad student CV's who got honorable mention and some of them were from stanford with around 4 publications and incredibly strong scores so i'm willing to bet that the reason they didn't get one was b/c of broader impacts. I feel as if it's one of the deal-breakers.

BTW, I got into grad school straight from undergrad and that inferiority complex doesn't really go away. My advisor is well-known in the field and she even talks about getting the impostor syndrome from time to time. It comes with the territory. Anyway, you're right, it is a little harder to get the NSF at your stage, but you seem as if you'd be in that shoo-in top 7%. If not, you'll still have 2 more tries. If you give me your email address, I'm willing to exchange applications/essays and compare.

On an unrelated note, I find it irritating that clinical people are applying and GETTING the NSF - they're taking their previous research and spinning it as social psych. I know a couple clinical students on fellowship...and if I know a couple, then it's a sure bet that there are more out there...grrr.