angrycrustacean

I got the email. Successful! Committee 1 - Literature and Fine Arts. Score of 15.61/18, last application recommended for funding in my committee was 13.55. Just as data points for future folks, I previously held CGS-M, OGS, and CGS-D (with Michael Smith Foreign Study Supplement). Not a ton of traditional publications, but a strong portfolio of research-creation/performances.

Hopping on here to say that, although SSHRC does look at things like publications and previous SSHRC awards, those are not prerequisites and, at least in theory, reviewers should be assessing each application more holistically. Reviewers do vary, and the more cynical ones may attempt to use quantity of publications as an "easy" way to assess an application without much further thought – but a strong, compelling proposal should still get their attention and, if you have good reviewers, their fair consideration. ...still stressing about my own application, of course! Since finishing my doctorate I took a position as a research grants officer in a small university, where I review and submit professors' SSHRC applications. This job has given me two great insights: 1) even tenured, exceptionally well-published, previous SSHRC awardee professors strike out with SSHRC reviewers all the time, and 2) SSHRC doesn't tell research offices anything useful, so even from my semi-insider perspective I have no clue when we'll hear about this.😅

Not yet. I am able to log in to the SSHRC Extranet for Applicants with my old credentials from the CGS-D competition, but there's nothing to see once logged in – just says I'm not authorized to view. Echoing @msfinley above, I was pretty cool about this for months, until the last few days when suddenly I'm getting impatient. Best of luck to you all.

Hi! Sorry this happened to you. It sucks. As has been pointed out, these things come down to luck of the draw - the best proposal in the world probably can't save you if one of your adjudicators just doesn't like your idea, your supervisor, or the weather that day. Last year I applied as a direct applicant and scored a soul-crushing 9 points. This year as a first-year Doctor of Musical Arts student I got 17.5 - some things had changed, which I'll talk about below, but I think I had unusually difficult adjudicators the first time and unusually generous ones this second time. That being said, some things I've been thinking about over the years for CGS-M, OGS, CGS-D, and the like: 1) In all of these applications, I have invariably done better when I can utilize the school's own grantwriting support programming. I attribute my CGS-D success this time around to the fact that I had the "inside scoop" on what kinds of information my proposal should highlight in order to even make it out of the faculty/university. Not only that, but professors/the faculty grants officer had a long memory about what kinds of proposals had been successful in the past. I worked on my proposal with five professors. 2) Paradoxically, I've also found that my grant applications are more successful when I follow my gut about what I want to say. Along the way I've had professors who had such strong opinions that it almost seemed like they wanted to write my proposal for me, or at least wanted to insert large chunks of ideas that I felt were outside of my scope. It's hard to decline or dilute those suggestions, but for every word I yield to those external ideas, I'm losing an opportunity to elaborate more clearly on what I really want to say. 2a) When I wrote up my first CGS-M proposal, a professor looked it over and complained that it lacked "spark" - it was a decent idea but it didn't seem to convey that I cared about it, wanted to do it, and was invested in the outcome. Sure enough, that application was unsuccessful. I really deeply cared about that particular proposal, but he was right. Following the rules and respecting the additions others had suggested had led to a proposal that was missing all of the excitement I'd originally had about the idea. It may be a coincidence, but when I followed my instincts and jettisoned the extraneous content people had added to my first CGS-M and CGS-D proposals, I was successful with second applications. Obviously we can't be gushing with enthusiasm as we write within these rigid proposal guidelines, but I think it's important to find subtle ways to show who you are and why you're excited about this. 3) Time is your friend. When I click to submit any proposal I invariably feel like it's My Finest Writing™, hand-delivered to me by an angel on a cloud. A couple of hours after submitting I start to wonder if I should have changed "that one thing." By the next week I'm filled with dread about having submitted irredeemable garbage, which only gets amplified by a rejection. But after a really long while, I can finally see a proposal for what it was - pretty good for when I wrote it, but with some things I'll change because now I know more. If somebody asked me today to show them My Finest Writing™, I wouldn't show them my "successful" CGS-D proposal unless I had some time to rewrite it to reflect all the thoughts I've had in the last 8-10 months. When you reapply - even aside from your new publications - I think your biggest advantage will be that you've thought about all of this for over a year, and you can build on the work you've done. I believe you 100% when you say you put your all into it - but this time, you'll have even more to put into it.

Heard results from my faculty at U of T today! Not offered - unclear if they just didn't like my proposal or if they didn't bother advancing it because I was already awarded CGS-D. Happy thoughts to those still waiting!

Congrats! Last year my recommendation was e-mailed to me as follows: "I am pleased to inform you that the Selection Committee for the Ontario Graduate Scholarship Program (OGS) at [my faculty] has completed its adjudication process and you have been nominated to receive a 2019-20 Ontario Graduate Scholarship. Upon final review and confirmation of your eligibility for this award by the School of Graduate Studies, an official award offer letter with terms and conditions of the award will be made available to you in July 2019." The followup e-mail from SGS in July was just a form letter confirming that I'd been deemed eligible and given the award. I think the SGS approval is just procedural, to make sure basic eligibility requirements are met, like not already receiving a CGS-M or CGS-D.

Even before the pandemic, my faculty at UofT told me to expect results in mid-July. But for it's worth, last year my faculty recommended me on June 20, and SGS confirmed the award on July 2.

Sorry this has happened to you - I was also waitlisted for my first CGS-M application a few years back and didn't get off of it. I know the uncertainty/radio silence is brutal, especially at times like this where there's lots of time to dwell on things. As you know, the purely logical thing to do would be to assume that ship has sailed, and to start thinking about how you can improve your application to this or other opportunities in the future (understanding, of course, that results are also just a matter of luck sometimes). However... I think that there is never truly "no chance" because the waitlist persists indefinitely - so for example if somebody has to withdraw from their program and relinquish the CGS-M, it may fall to you. I have received (other) awards from that exact thing happening. Given the current uncertainty about how universities are going to proceed in the fall, I'd say there is a higher-than-usual chance of some shakeups taking place. I'm not saying this to encourage false hope, but just to point out that they didn't outright reject you and that means you'll continue to be in play for this for a while. So my (unsolicited) advice is to be realistic and move on as best you can, but keep some tiny bit of hope burning somewhere.

I e-mailed fellowships@sshrc-crsh.gc.ca with my acceptance on Sat. May 2, and on Thu. May 7 I received the response "Good morning, I acknowledge receipt of the acceptance of your award. A copy of this e-mail will be placed on your file. We wish you success in your research." If you accepted early in the month and have not yet heard, it couldn't hurt to send them a followup e-mail to make sure nothing horrible happens.

This sucks a lot - sorry it happened to you. I had a similar (well, lower) score last year, although I didn't ask for my score breakdown. What your score breakdown suggests to me, though, is that you are absolutely on the right track. One reviewer thought you were absolutely great and gave you a score worthy of a CGS-D. The other one didn't, for reasons we can't know - maybe they were having a bad day, maybe they just don't like your particular topic, maybe they are lacking some type of knowledge that the other had. It's really awful that these things are reviewed by only two people, because humans are stupid and you can get torpedoed by just one miserable person. But other than that one person who ruined things, your academic background and the one positive reviewer suggest overwhelmingly that you're doing the right things. As I was waiting nervously for results this year, my supervisor told me that he had just talked to a professor colleague who is among the most successful in the country at bringing in gigantic institutional grants from SSHRC and other organizations, totaling many millions over their career - and with all of their experience and incredible track record they had just been rejected for a really large SSHRC grant for no logical reason. It's all a stupid opaque game of chance, and all a person can do is continue trying to build up competencies and clarify the expression of ideas. In the long run (I like to think) that's the work that will take us a lot further than this finite scholarship can anyway. ...none of this, of course, will make things suck any less right now, so enjoy some well-earned weeks of intense resentment against SSHRC and then, when you're ready, prepare to bang down their door again next year.

Thank you! So excited. Thinking mostly of applicants in future years who might trawl through this thread, I hope it might be useful to document my "journey" with SSHRC. 2014-15: SSHRC CGS-M Waitlisted, unsuccessful. 2015-16 SSHRC CGS-M Successful: Rewrote application entirely. 2019-20: SSHRC CGS-D Rejected: Direct applicant, not yet accepted to school at time of application. 2019-20: OGS Successful: Using trimmed version of CGS-D . 2020-21: SSHRC CGS-D Successful: Institutional applicant, applied during first year of doctorate. Rewrote application entirely, this time with help from many profs in my dept and university SSHRC-writing workshops. In terms of CV changes since previous application, the only major change is that I had won OGS and been accepted to my program. Score of 17.5/20 - but last year I got 9/20! I was really crushed by those past rejections, and things could have easily turned out differently this round if my adjudicators had had a different food for breakfast. It's all a roll of the dice, except that no matter what we get stronger, more confident, and more fully formed as we go through iterations. For those who have gotten (or will get) rejections/waitlisted, I feel you so so keenly and I hope my data points are another assurance that your work will ultimately pay off.

Just received CGS-D! Posted in the portal with no email. UofT, Committee 7521, 17.5/20. In the happiest state of shock.

I haven't yet. Things seem to be happening now at an accelerated pace, but I still wouldn't be surprised if I don't hear until much later in the day or even into next week. I've reached out to my institution to see if they have any answers, though I expect they'll brush me off.

Received the login email at 8:05am EST. No results yet. Edit: They're really starting early today. Maybe trying to push to get as many results out today as possible? Maybe I'm dreaming.

Killing it in the "treat yoself" category. ? Have a good night everyone.