hello! :)

IMHO, you should be fine for many programs. I too have a middling undergrad overall GPA due to my first 2.5 years. Ironically, I was rejected by the middle-of-the-road programs, but invited for interviews at many of the top programs that I applied to (with a couple in the top 15 in my field). One of those middle-tier programs was actually a very good fit for me, so I suspect that they must have weeded people out by undergrad GPA; all other aspects of my application was strong. Just make sure that you have lots of interesting research experience that you can talk about and good GRE scores to offset your lower overall GPA. Oh, and when you go on interviews, you might get asked about your first few years, so have a good, honest answer ready. You might want to consider leaving out the part where you say you weren't very good at your engineering classes. Professors don't expect you to know everything, nor be good at everything, but you still don't want to say anything with a negative connotation. Just my 2 cents!

Email professors at Duke! You just gotta put yourself out there -- even if you find that most of them don't respond to your emails. (But don't be a pest by sending multiple inquiries!) Also, speaking from personal experience, I would also advise not to read too much into the advice that you received. He may have urged you to apply for the post-bacc program because those are typically excellent opportunities to gain research experience while getting paid. Further, many post-bacc programs are funded by a grant (although I'm not sure if this is universal), which means greater freedom for you to join the lab that best fits your interest, since the advisor would not need to fund you. Moreover, many of these programs are structured to see the post-bacc succeed, so you will gain not only the experience to put on your CV, but scientific mentorship as well. In light of all the benefits a post-bacc program can offer, it's not surprising to me that your connection suggested this option first! And if this person is a *solid* connection, then I would assume that he probably knows at least a little bit about you and he wouldn't have recommended it if he thought that you didn't stand a chance. In regards to finding paid positions, yes they can be difficult, but sometimes it's just luck. Since there are major budget issues right now, it's probably extra hard. You could also try volunteering first. I did that and I started getting paid full-time after about 3 months of volunteering. Before you join, you might also consider nicely asking a current grad student in the lab about their advisor's current funding situation. Best of luck!

I'm positive that these results are for real. The 2011 list doesn't show up, but if you search for your name, it might show up (after waiting awhile for it to load) if you either received an HM or award. Unfortunately, I got an HM and it's my last year eligible. Oh well. Congratulations to those who received one! And good luck to those who still don't know!

Not a problem to me! Misery loves company! Let's wait in anxious anticipation together!!

I agree with your general point! Maybe this is an indication of the subjectiveness of this review process? To me, it seems that the definition of "transformational" could differ from person to person.

Awhile back, I came across these notes from someone who had served on one of the NSF GRF review panels from a couple years ago. I don't remember where I found them and I haven't been able to find them again on the web... Maybe for whatever reason this person had to take them down. In any case, I'll post them here as "notes from an anonymous NSF GRF review panelist," since I think that it provides some very helpful insights into the whole process. Thank you, Anonymous Panelist! * * * Notes after serving on the review panel for the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program ## Executive Summary + Fellowship applications in field of Mechanical Engineering are evaluated by panel of ME faculty. Remember your audience when your write. + Two criteria—intellectual merit and broader impacts—have equal weight this year + Roughly 15 minutes to read an entire application—make your point clearly and quickly. Roughly 10% of those _who apply_ for these fellowships will receive them. The applicants are all amazing individuals. ## The Process All of the applications are evaluated by a panel of engineering faculty from a variety of schools, including research and teaching schools. Applicants for the same field (e.g. Mechanical Engineering) are evaluated by the same panel. This year the mechanical engineering panel we participated in had more than 20 members, and evaluated roughly 400 applications. The applications are sorted by level: level 1 is for those who are in their final undergraduate year, level 2 is for those who have just started their graduate programs, and there are also levels 3 and 4. While all those who are in level 1, level 2, etc are evaluated simultaneously (with criteria appropriate to the level), the final decisions on who to fund are not done by level. NSF has two basic criteria for evaluating the applications: intellectual merit and broader impacts. _They are weighted equally._ After a “calibration exercise” which is designed to arrive at a kind of panel-wide understanding of what would constitute intellectual merit and broader impacts, each application is read by two panelists and scored (out of 50) in each category. One panelist reading a single application takes 15-20 minutes. Panelists can not read any applications for which they have a conflict of interest. At the end of these first and second reads, applications get two Z-scores, where Z = [(Application's Score) − (Mean Application Score for that Panelist)] / (Application Standard Deviation for that Panelist) The Z-score is created to adjust for the fact that some panelists score applications much higher (on average) than others. The average of the Z-scores is used to rank the applications. Applications in the top 35% of the ranking get a third reading, as do any applications that have a wide discrepancy on their Z-scores. (The discrepancies are identified by computer and by the panelists.) The remaining 65% of the applications are retired, meaning they get no further consideration. After the third reading, applications that have widely varying Z-scores are returned to the 3 panelists for additional discussion and a resolution. Finally a new ranking is created. The top 20 or so in this ranking are in Quality Group 1—definite funding. (Notice that this is only 5% of the applications.) The next 40 or so are in Quality Group 2—honorable mention and possible funding. (The top of this group may get funded, depending on resources. Also, this group is mined for recipients of special focus awards, programs for under-represented groups, etc.) The next 40 or so are in Quality Group 3—honorable mention. The rest are in Quality Group 4 and don’t get an award. ## Criteria for Evaluation Here are criteria we used in evaluating the applications for level 1. Keep in mind that each panelist develops their own criteria based on the panel discussion, so that not every panelist is going to use the same standards. However, they will give you the general ideas behind the ratings. Also, they may seem very harsh, but this turns out to be essential since all of the applications are very strong. ### *Intellectual Merit* >#### Excellent >> 1. The research proposal clearly describes truly innovative or transformative research. (Transformative research transforms the way the field or society will think about the problem.) >> 2. The student is academically well-prepared to conduct the research. Outstanding letters of recommendation, good GPA, solid GREs. The GPA does not need to be 4.0, but should be good. The GRE’s I saw were not as high as I anticipated. >> 3. The student has a clear passion for their work which comes across in their writing and their actions to date. >> 4. The student has prior research or industry experience that demonstrated the ability to define, initiate, and complete projects with substantial independence. Avoid describing senior design projects or class projects, as they were not generally persuasive. >#### Very Good >> (2), (3), and (4) still there. Research is solid (more than incremental) but not transformative or truly innovative. Or, (1), (2), and (3) but not (4). >#### Good >> (2) and (3), research is solid, but no (4). >#### Fair >> (2) and (3). Research proposal is weak and student has little experience. >#### Poor >> Student is not well-prepared, research plan is ordinary and sketchy, and the student has failed to convey any passion for their work. ### *Broader Impacts* Be sure to address this topic, as Broader Impacts is half of the score and many applicants who were Excellent in Intellectual Merit did not address this area sufficiently. Also, be sure to realize that almost everyone who applies for these grants wants to teach at the college level. Wanting to be a teacher at the college level is not evidence of broad impact. _The identity of an individual does not constitute a broad impact._ This was explicitly discussed at the panel and explicitly ruled out (by NSF) as a broad impact. The fact that you are a female, Hispanic, Native American, African-American, etc does not, in itself, qualify as a broad impact. Also, personal struggle (health/economic/family) does not constitute a broad impact. Whoever you are, you need the types of broad impacts discussed under “Excellent” below. However, if you are part of an under-represented group or have overcome substantial difficulties in getting to your current position, do put this information in your personal statement if you want it to be considered. After the proposals are ranked, those who fall into these categories in Quality Group 2 will be picked up for additional funding opportunities. >#### Excellent >> 1. Demonstrated record of substantial service to the community, K-12 outreach, commitment to encouraging diversity, etc. Straight leadership a plus, but most highly ranked applicants have ongoing outreach/service activities. >> 2. Clear explanation of the broader impacts of the research. How will it affect society, and why should the government fund your project over someone else’s? If the project’s success would have huge impacts on its engineering field, it would fall a bit here and a bit in Intellectual Merit. (Different panelists had different views on this.) >#### Very Good >> (1) or (2) is somewhat weaker. (1) still has demonstrated record (not just “I will do...”) but the record is weaker, or (2) is still there but the impact is less dramatic. >#### Good >> Both (1) and (2) are present, but weak. >#### Fair >> (1) or (2) is completely missing, but the one that is present is at an Excellent level. >#### Poor >> (1) or (2) is completely missing, the one component that is present is only at a Very Good level. * * * Edit: Had to fix some dumb formatting issues.

I did this too. I was told that one entire application only receives ~15 minutes of review time per panel member, so it's better to be clearer and more explicit.

Hey thanks for your comments on the iPad! I've been looking into getting an eReader for quite awhile to cut down on printing so many dang articles. Can I also get your thoughts on the iPad's resolution for PDF reading? (screen size and pixel per inch) I heard that reading the text sometimes gets uncomfortable because the the ppi is on the lower end.

You can also ask your new advisor if you can start in the lab early (with pay)!

Ack! I accidentally voted for the wrong school. I meant to vote for Baltimore. My opinion is that you want to pick the school with the best fit for your research interest. And while the environment does matter, I think that the type of people that you will be around might matter more. Do you get along with them well? I know that for myself, I can be happy with my friends no matter where we're at... Too bad I can't take my current friends with me to grad school.

OK I thought about it and I think your situation is definitely worse because my program funds me and I'm actually moving farther away from my home next year. In any case, I agree with the other people here... Don't give in! And definitely DON'T EVER GIVE UP PLEASE!! I understand how difficult it is to say no to one's mother. They can be extremely passive aggressive and emotionally manipulative... In the end, it always seems to feel like we're the one that's doing something wrong. Well, I know that I'm not the perfect daughter. I'm trying my best to live my own life and love her with all my heart – all at the same time. Of course, she doesn't believe the latter because of the former, but it has gotten better over the years...

Hey Just me, I don't have any advice for you, but I can tell you about my situation... and maybe you can tell me which kind of nagging is worse... I'm female and asian american. But unlike my other asian american friends, my mom doesn't care much about pursuing higher education. In fact, she was disappointed that I had not found a husband by the end of my undergraduate degree. According to her logic, the reason why I should go to a great university is so that I can have better choices on the man that I should marry. "Doctors are preferred... no lawyers because they're dishonest," she says. Anyway, long-story-short, she thought it was silly of me to want to pursue grad school and spend all my time in the research lab. I applied anyway and got into a great program at one of the Ivy leagues. When I told her this, she changed her tune. She is now ecstatic because she has convinced herself that I've "saved" myself throughout undergrad so that I can go to grad school at an Ivy league and find me a nice husband there. Can we say "delusional"?? haha The twist is that I do not plan to marry a man because I like women!

Hmm.. My point is that, IMHO, it isn't far-fetched to imagine that she might find it easier to find forgiveness and sympathy in another area of the country that may be more homogeneous (ref. this great link posted by Sparky). I'm certainly not saying that this will be true for everyone that she meets there, nor am I asserting that those people who would be sympathetic to her situation wouldn't see anything wrong with what she had said. I am saying that, on the whole, California has some of the most diverse cities in the nation (Los Angeles, in particular). So comparatively, there may be some places out there that will be more welcoming to her – but not "welcoming" in the sense that they support her words or whatever. Hope that clarifies a little bit...

@was1984 I wasn't pointing at any particular state.

No need to feel bad for her. My prediction is that she will survive just fine. There are plenty of other states in the USA that will be more than happy to welcome her, unfortunately.

This is so true.

Thanks for clarifying. I notice that schools are doing that more and more, which I think is a nice trend, since it's more specific to the research that we do.

^^^ oops! Forgot to make my point... which is, if the other grad students in the program at UT Austin seem unconcerned about their funding for the next couple years, then I would think that's a good sign! As mentioned above, just under $20K is pretty standard. Congrats, again!

@Arcadian Congratulations on your acceptance! I applied to both Neuroscience PhD programs and Psychology PhD programs, so I might be able to shed a little light on the funding differences. The "cognitive neuroscience" programs are typically associated with the psychology department, whereas neuroscience programs are usually more associated with the division of biological sciences. Generally speaking, psychology programs offer smaller stipends, which come out to ~20K a year and require several terms of TA-ship. Some of the top programs in psychology may offer up to ~24K since they typically have more grant money, but that's not always true... which may be related to whether it's at a public or private institution. A professor once told me to be careful when a program does not guarantee funding for all 4-5 years. The best strategy in that case is to ask the current graduate students for their opinions about the funding situation, which sounds like you've already done. At one of the schools that this professor had interviewed at (years ago!), the 2nd year students there were absolutely miserable because funding for the 3rd-5th year was cut-throat and somewhat political. Many students actually left the program early with their MA received en route. Neuroscience programs are typically funded by big training grants and guarantee funding for all 5 years (whether paid from the training grant or by grants from individual advisors). The stipend is usually higher ~26K and can get as high as ~30K depending on location (e.g. expensive cities)... The required number of TA-ships is also typically much less. All the neuroscience programs that I interviewed at required only one semester, with the option to do more, of course. Hope that helps!

How big are these logos that we're talking about? I would personally err on the side of caution and forgo the predesigned slides. There will always be people who will take it the wrong way and see it as a pretentious act. Of course, this only matters if you care about what other people think.... And unfortunately, I do care very much about what other people think of me!

I'm guessing that the program in NYC is 2 years, right? One year flies by really quickly, so I would pick the shorter program. The other thing to consider is to pick the program that will give you the most connections! After all, you'll probably need some income after you graduate! Congratulations on the two great offers, by the way!

What's your question? I'm guessing you're worried about your chances. If you want to apply to the top top programs, in general it's best to get over a 1400 GRE score, but it's not absolutely necessary. Research experience (and relatedly, your letters of recommendation and SOP) will matter more.

I would go with the one where you will have the most opportunities. Graduate school is mostly what you make of it. That being said, the one that offers the greatest opportunities will give you the greatest freedom to do great things. If all else being equal, I'd go with the one with the better name. To my understanding, the name of a person's graduate school doesn't matter too often; it's the accomplishments that speak for themselves. However, sometimes name recognition does help. Big-named schools have "street cred," if you know what I mean.

I thought so too. My undergraduate thesis was ~3500 words, but that's because it was just an undergraduate project. However, I also know that brevity is a good thing when it comes to publishing in journals, so I didn't think to comment on the length of the OP's master's thesis in my original post.

One of my past english teachers told us that the length of an essay should be like a woman's skirt: long enough to cover the important parts, but short enough to keep it interesting. ha. 3000 words sounds fine. I'd worry more about the content and style than the actual word count itself.