firefly luciferase

This might not be an accurate way of determining, but typically 2000 awards are given. However, if you look at the 2011 offered award list, there are 2077 applicants listed. So potentially 77 of the original awardees declined the fellowship, and 77 HMs got bumped up. There are 2051 awardees listed for 2010.

One more for BI: Demonstrating a broader range of interests outside of science/engineering can be a good thing, as long as taking the time to discuss these doesn't detract from your scientific BIs. For example, a small part of my personal statement described how I had volunteered/traveled extensively through several non-technical service organizations as an undergrad, and the reviewers responded positively to this. Another winning essay/review I read included having minored in some type of international/cultural studies in undergrad.

Great post, vertices. A few additions: IM - potential/preparedness to carry out proposed research - possible pitfalls and alternatives in proposal - "proposed graduate institution"/department is appropriate to proposed research (i.e. proposal aligns somewhat with work being done by professors in the department) BI - long term career goals

@curiousgeorgie, did you at least include the paper as a "manuscript in preparation"? I would think that would give you a few brownie points.

IM/BI, offered award: E/VG E/E E/E The first reviewer couldn't seem to decide whether I was a boy or girl. The second reviewer's comments were more of a summary. The third reviewer, based on his/her summary of the major BI points from my personal statement, apparently had sub-par reading comprehension. For those preparing for next year, the only helpful critiques were that my proposal wasn't clear on anticipated research results, and that it didn't address "resource access and constraints" - although I did specifically name professors at my school with expertise in each of the various aspects of my proposal. Apparently my PI helped by addressing more of these in the reference letter, but I thought this was a weird comment. One reviewer encouraged me to go to more conferences (I'm only a first year, so I haven't yet). 2 reviewers mentioned the strength of my reference letters for IM, so choose your writers carefully! I went through about 3-6 iterations of each essay, and each one was read by several past GRFP winners, along with my advisor and friends who are in science but in unrelated fields. Another thing that I found really helpful was having copies of past winners' essays and score sheets, as I basically used this as a template to figure out what was important to emphasize.

If you're just entering grad school, you can't get your funding until the fall: http://www.nsf.gov/p...f11050.jsp#a018

Reviews (at least mine) are up!!!, even though they're still not *officially* linked when you log in. https://www.fastlane...hod=loadApplRev I found this link after browsing last year's thread:

^ I think that describes most of science

Yep, it's down.

2 am ET, 11 pm PT.

The 4th tier is people who have more than 12 months of graduate study (who would otherwise be ineligible to apply) due to extenuating circumstances. i.e. people who wrote that extra eligibility essay on the application. Very few people fall into this category though. I was told by a professor at my school who serves on a review panel that they do separate the applications into 3 groups (graduating seniors, first years, second years) when they review them, and that the standards are obviously higher for the later groups.

If you're asking if s/he has enough time to even take you on as a rotation student, just ask him/her! If you're asking if s/he will have enough time to mentor you as your advisor, that's the whole point of doing the rotation - to get a feel for his/her style/lab. I don't think it's problematic that the professor is not yet tenured - shouldn't be a problem if the lab is consistently putting out good work. (And has the money!) Also wanted to add - it's not like rotation advisors typically stand over you and watch you pipette or whatever - on a day-to-day basis you'll most likely be mentored by a postdoc or senior grad student.

Agreed, almost every professor who has interviewed me at 4 different visiting weekends has asked me what other schools I'm looking at. They want to know who their competitors are, and generally their intentions are only to help address any questions you might have about their/other programs. Assuming you applied with the same interest areas, the professors probably know your POIs at other schools who are in their field. That and the adcom chairs do sometimes talk to their counterparts at peer institutions, as one of them told me.

Nope, I didn't apply there.

I met a bunch of people who had interviewed there around the end of February.

You applied for masters-only programs? I was under the impression that MS's are typically unfunded while usually only PhD students get a stipend. If that's the case, any stipend at all (even if it's on the low side) is a pretty good deal. Maybe it's different in mechanical engineering, though...

I didn't apply, but Northwestern ChemE's recruiting weekends were last weekend and this weekend. I'm guessing that chances are pretty slim at this point, unfortunately.

How about treating them to a nice dinner at their favorite restaurant?

Heard from Penn today. They were very confusing as to whether it's an acceptance (according to the decision posted by SEAS on ApplyYourself) or just an interview (separate e-mail invitation from the dept), but visiting weekends are February 24-26, March 3-5, and March 17-19.

I haven't gotten anything. There was a handful of internationals rejections earlier on, but only one domestic rejection posted earlier today. I don't think they're done reviewing applications yet. I heard the adcom meets every other Thursday, so maybe more news next week...

I'm crossing my fingers that there will be more UW interview invites. Also saw in the results section that someone got an invite from MIT BE... anybody know anything about that?

Speak of the devil, just got my Boulder acceptance. Woot!

I applied to CU Boulder in early December. The silence is driving me nuts - so much for having a rolling deadline!

Penn: http://www.be.seas.u...earch/index.php Rice: http://bioengineerin...ocus_areas.aspx Caltech: http://www.be.caltec...arch/index.html I don't claim to be an expert on any of these schools - I've spent the most time looking over Penn's program, followed by Rice, and know close to nothing about Caltech. Also, my particular interests are in drug/gene delivery and cell/tissue engineering, so I might be biased. Penn spans a wide range of research areas and also has a particularly large number of faculty (and more in other depts who are members of the Graduate Group). I know they have an HHMI program in biomedical imaging. They also seem to have fairly good ties to the med school for the translational aspect. For Rice, Antonios Mikos and Jennifer West are a couple of the big names, and I think the department as a whole has traditionally collaborated with MD Anderson Cancer Center, Baylor, and Texas Medical Center, which if I remember correctly is one of the largest medical centers in the country. Actually, I just saw on their website that they recently got a big grant for cancer diagnostics with a bio-nano-chip - see http://bioengineerin...ent.aspx?id=223 - cool. I'm not really familiar with Caltech's department except that it's a relatively new and interdisciplinary department. Most if not all faculty have primary appointments in other departments (chemistry, chemical engineering, biology, etc).

The invitation looked like a mass e-mail with registration requested by Feb 1. Sorry, I think additional invites are probably unlikely. =/