GoldenDog

I thought DOD does the selection? Hahah I dont get it. NSF likes to brag about number of women, minorities, etc and thats a big part of their selection process... but NDSEG doesnt seem to care as much, and so it seems like itd be faster. Also, I'm pretty sure that's just when they announced last year. Who knows, they may announce much sooner.

I wouldn't fret. From looking at the discusson from last year, its an absolute mess. They even accepted people directly from the rejected list! So point being, until you get an explicit email, don't worry. All we can do until then is just pester them every once and a while. Probably they will release it all next week.

E/E E/E E/E Awarded. To all, this is an arbitrary award process with little bearing on your value as a scientist. Congrats to those who won, condolences to those with less luck.

Yes, I did. I didn't get the email in January though.

As stated earlier, DOD was supposed to give them results by March 31 this year, but I'm unsure when the same time was last year.

Lol, as previously mentioned, NDSEG said DOD would get back to them on March 31. I called and mentioned this, and on the phone they said "within the next two weeks, announcements should be made."

Me too but its not worth the time to check.

Lol at those poor confused students in 2005.

When did you email? I had emailed on March 17th for the same reason, and heard back on the 19th.

I wish they were more responsive generally. They probably won't actually give you much info. As another student, I'm happy to look at your app if you are planning on applying again next year.

Ah, so you just mean separately. I mean, the most important step seems to be separating Q1 from Q2's, so what I'm getting at is whether the Q1 pool for the undergrad is completely separate from the Q1 pool from the grad? Assumedly with the number of awards allocated for each pool representing some proportion that reflects the ratio number of undergrad applicants to total applicants. Alternately, if the pools aren't separated, is it possible/true that being an undergrad may be a factor that allows you to move from Q2 to Q1? More generally, I'm trying to understand if it is fact easier to win as an undergrad, or not. In the past, undergrads have won ~1/3 of the awards, but from this info alone its hard to know how helpful being an undergrad is. As a white male undergrad worried about being left as a Q2, this type of question seems pertinent (but still practically useless). As a faculty, do you have experience as a panelist?

I've heard that, so are they actually scored on a different scale then?

I feel like I've heard about them separating undergrads and grads into separate groups, but after looking for a few minutes, I don't see that actually written anywhere... Do you remember where you may have read that?

To be fair, the application materials have been different until this current year. Previous years required a very small, one page personal statement. Its possible they provide some feedback later, but don't get your hopes up. It cant hurt to email STI.

There are lots of different NSF panels. I really really really doubt that the panel your adviser attended was for GRFP, as those took place a long while ago. The budget for this year's GRFP is not changing, and there is no evidence anything else will change either. This time period is when NSF office goes through and selects final award recipients.

Really this was an excellent post. Do you know how grad versus undergrad plays into the decision, if at all? The old paper that they mentioned (linked here) talks about how the process used to run like 20 years ago, and we assume that it is still similar. However, there was no mention of whether or not grad versus undergrads are judged differently. Can anyone speak to this?

Hah, you can check it out here.

I don't see an actual reason that more people would really apply this year, and if anything funding cuts would discourage applicants. This fellowship is not an inelastic thing where all students feel they have to have it. If I think there are less awards, I'm probably less likely to apply since it's already a crapshoot. Regardless, results will probably be this week. At least it's not like NSF GRIP/GROW where they accidentally notified everyone that they had won, and then backpedaled.

I mean, it's a nice try based upon available data. However, to really know, we probably need to better understand the process after the panelists review the application. The page here.says that two panelists meetings are held in January. I think it's unlikely that panels are held at the same time for every field. Probably each field has a quota of awards to give proportional to the number of applicants there.The page says all panels end in January, but I don't know what else would remain after that. Its likely that some special interdisciplinary panels etc maybe held later. Of course, the number of panelists can be changed each year, so the number of applicants versus the expected number of applicants may influence when the panel meetings are *actually* held. However, I think its not super likely that this is the case. Based on this website ( http://grfpessayinsights.missouri.edu/review), it appears that the NSF GRFP office will review the findings of the panel afterwards, and decide who actually gets the awards. Probably this is a variable amount of time every year with no rhyme or reason for how long that takes. Maybe someone knows what else happens between the panel decisions and award announcement? Regardless of the usefulness of trying to predict the date, the page stated above does state that the panels are held on either Monday or Thursday, or Tuesday/Friday. Perhaps this is the reason for the the Tuesday/Friday dates? By the way, if you really want to go with your method, probably take the total number of days since the panelists receive the applications (or since the office receives the applications) rather than total days between due date and the announcements. Also consider assuming that only 20% of the applicants (those who are neither shoe in's nor throw outs) are actually reviewed by the NSF office, since that's the last step. Probably also assume the same or slightly fewer applicants (12.5-13k) this year as compared to last year, since some of the students last year who were grandfathered in are now gone. Also assume that

You can go through web archives and see NSF website from different dates to get application due dates, award notification, number of applicants, etc for at least the last 5 years or so.

Ah ok cool. I really wish they would tell us who makes up the DOD panel... Because that's really where you make the money, and I don't know if it's project managers, or just random researchers, or what? it would make a difference. I discussed specific divisions w/ in navy and AFOSR in my app, so I'm not sure if the app is sent to DOD generally, specific divisions, etc...

Someone earlier stated a number (1400) that amounts to this, but I have yet to see it from any actual source or email.

Did they actually say how many people move onto this last stage? They didn't tell me this in the March email I got, and I never got a January one.

The bill wouldn't affect the awards going out. There is almost always maintenance during the release, but otherwise y'all are overthinking this.

Such confidence in your app this year, huh?