For those who are wondering about inconsistencies between 2010 and 2011 ratings: My school's CO found out that due to the storms of 2010, many of the volunteer reviewers were unable to travel to the reviewing site last year. The NSF had to recruit local postdocs, junior faculty--whoever they could find who had a PhD--to fill the gap. This means that 2010 ratings may not have been a fair representation of how our apps measured up against NSF standards. (I don't know which fields this applied to...I think there are at least 2 reviewer meetings covering different areas, and I don't know if both groups faced this problem.)
