Just discovered this board - would have been awesome last week when I was freaking out in solitude. My NSF story - applied last year in cognitive psychology, didn't get it - not even HM. I reapplied this year in "Social Science (other - Science Ed)" and got it
I second what others have said about Broader Impacts. I didn't have to spin my project/experience too much b/c I was formerly a public school teacher and my research relates directly to elementary science ed. However, one of my advisers (an NSF panelist) said its important that the Broader Impact piece is crystal clear and, ironically, as specific as possible. "My research will help kids learn" is not as good as "my work will be of great interest to curriculum developers and educators because..." He also helped me revise my essays to prioritize intellectual maturity and rigor over enthusiasm. They actually don't really care or want to know about how much you love science. It seems to be much more about convincing them that you can develop a solid research plan and that you are well positioned to make it happen. Sidenote - I hear that they don't even care whether you end up doing the project you propose. They fund the student, not the project.
I looked at my rating sheets today (from last year and this year). Last year, one reviewer gave me an excellent (on merit) and a very good (on broader impacts); the other gave me two goods and some snarky comment about how the project I proposed had been done before (it hadn't). This year, I got two excellents from one, an excellent (broader impact) and a very good (intellectual merit) from another...and the third gave me excellent on broader impact but good on intellectual merit - said my project sounded like a "pilot study" and completely misread my proposal (misidentified my dependent variable even though it was in the title). The funny thing - my amateur handwriting analysis suggests that this hasty reviewer is noneother than last year's snarky "good" giver. The handwriting is identical! Either a huge coincidence or the NSF panelist pool is very small.
Anyway - for those undergrads or first year grad students who didn't get it this year, my advice is to apply again even if you aren't sure about your qualifications. I wasn't worried about my grades, GREs, experience or recommendations, but I haven't published (2 in press) and have only presented at a couple conferences. If your particular proposal resonates with your particular reviewers, you've got a good chance.
