Psy22

Hey everyone, I see many people are hearing back from SSHRC this year and some are wondering about the waitlist. I wrote this post a few years ago about the waitlist based on several email exchanges I had with a SSHRC officer and I see it's been getting some traction. Well, unfortunately the post was wrong in some ways because that SSHRC officer provided me with inaccurate information. I know this because I was eventually forwarded to a more senior SSHRC official who corrected their colleague's statements. Specifically, this part was wrong: "In the event that funding becomes available, offers will be made on the basis of the rank of each application in the competition overall." The more senior SSHRC official clarified that offers are made to the next highest ranking application within the same committee. That was a huge difference for me, as I would've been the next highest ranked application overall, but because no one ahead of me in my committee declined the award, I never received an offer. It seems I can't go back and edit the post, so I wanted to correct the record here. Now, I'll share the story of how the rest of my situation played out for anyone interested, especially those feeling down in the dumps about their rejections... Later that year, I managed to cobble together enough funding and sessional teaching gigs to tide me over for another year and apply to SSHRC again, with a similar proposal but a substantially improved CV and I ended up... scoring even lower! I was absolutely gutted. I was frustrated by the ranking process and the way things were handled administratively. I was upset at seeing proposals that clearly should've fallen under the umbrella of CIHR receive SSHRC funding. I was unhappy with seeing that some of the previous year's reviewers for my committee had fewer and less impactful research outputs in their 30+ years in academia than I had in my < 10 years... I felt a lot of stress, strain, and frustration over what is essentially peanuts in funding. But, as weird as this will sound, I'm now thankful for it! Just a couple months after the 2nd SSHRC rejection, a posting came up for a postdoc position that was a little outside of my core expertise, but I thought I might be able to make it work. The supervisor was open to the position being fully remote and it paid about the same amount as a Banting award, plus benefits! I was surprised to get the position very soon after applying. With the livable wage, I haven't had to do any sessional teaching, which has been great. I've ended up loving the position and the work that I do... I've certainly become a better scientist because of the experience and I've also massively broadened my professional network. And I can honestly say my supervisor (a Canada Research Chair) has been impressed with my skillset and valued my work. I'm sure we'll keep collaborating for years to come. A few months after starting my new postdoc, I was interviewed for a sweet faculty position at a well-ranked school overseas. I ended up receiving an offer and deferring because my partner and I ended up having a baby. By virtue of being an internal postdoc, I was able to take parental leave while receiving a salary top-up...! (I don't believe SSHRC or even Banting award winners receive any support like that.) Additionally, working remotely has been hugely beneficial for raising a baby. In a few months, we'll be leaving Canada to start my new faculty position and we're really looking forward to our new life overseas. I never would've expected all this around the time of my SSHRC rejection, but things probably couldn't have worked out better for me. Now, everyone's situation is different. But I share my story to illustrate that even if you feel absolutely devastated, life goes on. And sometimes, not getting such (minimal) funding leads to opportunities that set you down an even better path. Also, don't take SSHRC rankings too personally... they're comparing apples and oranges and pears and doing so quite superficially. For me, I put a lot more stock into feedback I've received from other experts in my field (e.g., those who've read my work, those who've hired me, those who seek me out for collaboration) than a SSHRC committee of "expert generalists". Not getting SSHRC certainly didn't spell the end of my academic career and it might not spell the end of yours either. I hope my story helps bring some of you a bit of needed hope and perspective. Wishing each of you, the very best.

I received a very similarly worded answer to one of my earlier emails about how it's determined. The SSHRC rep did mention that funding might also be offered to postdocs as a part of joint funding initiatives, which I imagine is where the "flux" comes into play. But when I asked specifically about the procedure for ranking applicants, they said it was based on final score. And I just heard back from you—we were talking to the same person, so this isn't a matter of inconsistent messaging, just probably the context we were talking about (i.e., reassigning declined funding only vs. joint initiatives/reassigning declined funding/extra money SSHRC finds/etc.). Thanks for the congrats--I think I have pretty favourable odds of getting it. And with a 5.03, I imagine that you're pretty high up in rank too--only applicants from Committees 4B and 3 could possibly score higher—you too were the first that didn't make the cut in your Committee, right? Of 160 award holder, I figure 5-10 received the Banting and at least another 5-10 have gotten better postdocs lined up already. Speculating based on the scores and ranks people have shared, I anticipate that anyone with a 5+ has a pretty decent shot at getting funding... and rightfully so I might add. Pretty heartbreaking to be graded so highly and still not make the cut! Anyway, best of luck to you (and anyone else reading this)!

As promised, I'm sharing some information I've gathered regarding the waitlist after some back and forth emailing with SSHRC. I'm tagging @jungyun and @mustardseed since it may be of interest to you. I'm also putting this together for anyone in future years who tries to make sense of the SSHRC PDF waitlist as it seems to have evolved over the years and in people in the past hadn't shared much on how it works. As I mentioned in a previous post, there used to be a formal waitlist of 20% of applicants and those applicants received a formal letter stating their position on the waitlist. About 2 years ago, they got rid of that altogether, likely because the list gave a lot of students false hope. Though there isn't a formal waitlist today, there is still a procedure SSHRC follows to forward funding offers when one of the applicants who received a funding offer turns it down (e.g., because of getting a tenure-track job, Banting, or more lucrative postdoc elsewhere). A few points I wanted to highlight: 1) SSHRC PDF funding stays within the competition. Previously, some people had speculated that the money originally allocated to SSHRC PDFs would be reallocated if original offers were declined. SSHRC has clarified that is not the case: "The funding for postdoctoral researchers is not diverted to other programs." There were 160 funding offers that were made and any that are declined will be advanced to the next ranking students. Which brings me to... 2) Funding does not (necessarily) stay within committees. SSHRC agent shared this about how available (e.g., declined) funding would be forwarded: "In the event that funding becomes available, offers will be made on the basis of the rank of each application in the competition overall." Previously, people had written that funding would stay within the same committee. That does not appear to be the case. 3) The (informal) waitlist rank is based on your final score. Regarding the ordering of applications when funding becomes available: "... an application’s rank in the competition is determined by their final scores." So, if you have a high score but not offer yet, there may still be a chance. But what is a high score? Based on what people have posted here, I've compiled the lowest scores funded per committee: 1: < 4.93 (I don't have the lowest funded score, but someone was funded with a 4.93) 2A: 4.82 2B: 5.02 3: 5.06 4A: 4.72 4B: 5.09 5: 5.04 6: 4.92 Interestingly, assuming this is all accurate info, I can deduce that I'm first in line on this list (scored a 5.08 in Committee 4B). I'll be happy to post updates if/when I hear from SSHRC. It may be helpful for others to do this as well and share their score to give others a sense as to whether offers are nearing their score. As for when those offers are extended: in the past it's seemed like these are sent out in bulk, rather than 1 at a time. Those 160 who were offered the award have 6 weeks to accept or decline it. So, I expect the first wave of "waitlist" offers to be sent out some time in the weeks following mid-April. For what it's worth, people had previously noted that SSHRC had told them that being in the top 5 or top 10 of the waitlist boded well for their chances of getting an offer and some people received them as late as mid-September. That's all I have for now, hope someone finds this helpful!

I've been wondering exactly this and whether things have changed from previous years. Based on what I've seen, as recently as two years ago, there has been a waitlist and about 20% of applicants are put onto it. There are at least a couple of reasons for which applicants on the waitlist could be offered funding: (1) someone who was offered funding has rejected it (e.g., because they received a Banting, took up a more lucrative postdoc, or received a job), and (2) "Funding becomes available" (e.g., someone a year into a SSHRC postdoc fellowship receives a job, thus ending their SSHRC fellowship funding). In the past, SSHRC has been rather ambiguous about how priority on the waitlist is decided. It seems like it's some sort of blend between committee and your score. This is just conjecture, but I get the sense that funding made available because of (1) stays within the same committee. Funding made available through (2)--I think--is sorted like this: First 8 spots go to the the highest ranked applicants in each committee who weren't offered funding with ties broken by individual scores. (Although I can imagine that maybe the tie-breaker is whichever committee had the marginally lowest acceptance rate.) Then the next 8 spots go to the next spot on each committee's list and so on. That's my best guess about what happens because in the past people have been ranked on the waitlist but in some cases lower scores received funding before higher scores. But, with everything going on with COVID, that whole structure may have changed. What worries me a touch is that in past years people have received a letter about being on the waitlist, but I've yet to see or hear anything about that. Granted, that might be the last thing they upload since not everyone seems to have received their notice of decision yet. I hope they wouldn't shortchange the PDF program at the expense of extending research funding and and existing fellowships. Anyway, I emailed SSHRC yesterday to find out what is the procedure. If I hear back anything useful--even confirmation that the waitlist exists--I'll post an update.

Committee Name: 4B - Education; Linguistics; Psychology; Social Work Applications: 88 Fellowships Offered: 18 (20.5%) Fellowships Not Offered: 70 (79.5%) Score of last funded application: 5.09 I ranked 19th with a score of 5.08. Ouch. If one of the 18 ranked ahead of me turns it down, I will be offered funding, correct? If so, I'm hoping one of those fine 18 people have received a Banting or a job! To anyone who's received an offer: what is the listed deadline for accepting or declining the funding? Thanks in advance!