PGxalex

Ah okay, that makes sense... I'm still wondering how they control the number of people who are recommended, then, since the number of grants for each country varies so much, and they say they recommend 1.5-2 times the number of grants.. Where were you able to find the stats based on discipline?

In regards to all the disheartened science people... I actually missed this the first time I looked at the list of NSC members (because I was so focused on the country-specific people), but there is a category of "Science" evaluators, in the "Committees of Academic Fields by Discipline"... underneath the committees on Architecture, Business, and Creative Writing. Then, in the NSC Review Process and Rating Scale document, I noticed it said this: THE REVIEW PROCESS A comparative approach is used in the National Screening Committee review process. It includes both rating and ranking the applications for a specific country or, in a few of cases, for a specific field. Then further down the page: FIELD OF STUDY: SCIENCE (LIMITED), BUSINESS (LIMITED), CREATIVE WRITING, ARCHITECTURE Field specialists Professionals & faculty Country/World Region experience optional I interpreted this to mean that regardless of the country you applied for, if your application was science-based, it would get sent to the Science committee rather than the country committee, and the science applications would be ranked against each other, rather than against the other applicants for that country... This part confused me, though, because some countries designate a preference for STEM applications, so I'm not sure how the science rankings could be integrated into the country rankings, if it's all evaluated separately... Alternatively, I guess the science committee could provide the ratings of applications for feasibility, past experience, etc., and leave the absolute ranking up to the country committees. Does anyone have any other ideas about this? Or any other interpretations of what this means...?