snowshoes

My first two years of my undergrad degree were abysmal mark-wise and it took me 5 years to finish the degree, which definitely prevented me from getting an NSERC for my MSc. However, I worked hard and got lots of research/conference experience and ended up getting a PGS-D last May. I'm proof that your marks won't always be a scarlet letter and you can balance the scale with other achievements. Of course, marks weigh heavier for the MSc-level awards. You have nothing to lose from applying and will gain the very useful experience of writing a grant proposal. If you don't apply, you have no chance! Never feel silly or embarrassed about your marks and don't ever let that hold you back from any application. Good luck

I think part of my brain just melted from reading this...

I am very curious about my OGS application; last year I was put on the NSERC waitlist but not the OGS waitlist. I heard murmurings from other faculty members that the OGS committees in my department have been notorious for picking their own students over those who may merit it more. I got an NSERC this year, so it would be funny if I didn't even get put on the OGS waitlist (and maybe lend creedence to the rumours I heard). I would like to get an OGS simply to decline and put it on my CV! NSERC and OGS are independent, so I assume one would hear offers from both funding agencies regardless of their decisions.

When and how were you informed - a letter in the mail or did a grad coordinator contact you?

No, your application status will not change (mine still said "received" after a rejection last year and acceptance this year).

Never a good idea! The thread 2 years ago was pretty ridiculous: people trolling and saying they had gotten things in the mail in early March, hundreds of posts a week, etc. I think I lost a couple years off my life (but I learned from it). Congrats on the CGS (PGS)! Maybe NSERC will throw that CGS my way

The envelope was not very thick. If I recall correctly, it had 2 (maybe 3?) pages it in. There was no score. The first page had the congrats blurb, on the back it said what your award was, and then there was 1 (or 2) pages about policies and online forms.

Congrats! I know exactly what you mean about it the bitter-sweet feeling.

I just wanted to confirm that I also received my letter today (dated March 19).

Thanks! Yes, it seemed quit early to hear about this. Maybe the letters will be sent in the next couple weeks? I would rather have been told officially, but this saves me a month or so of anxiety and checking the mail compulsively (I already started to do this last week!). It was also my last year to apply. My application has been forwarded for three years and I was on the wait list last year, so I am happy that I finally made it. I wish you the best of luck!

Well, it's the end of a long road for me: I ran into my grad admin today and was told I received a PGS2 (they had received the email today)! I can't believe I was disappointed that it was a PGS and not a CGS, but I'm happy I finally got something from NSERC. Who knows, maybe I'll get bumped to a CGS this summer Good luck to everyone and don't give up!

You could also look into an industrial NSERC if you hashed out a project with a potential supervisor and it had the potential for an industrial partnership. I'm dying to hear about it. I'm trying to not get my hopes up too much, but I managed to publish a couple more papers and give a couple more talks since my 2013-2014 applications. I hope this boosts my chances!

Of course they want you to do a full year of courses, more money for them! That seems like absurd advice, but when applying for a CGS-M marks are the big deciding factor. I was in your position regarding poor academic choices in my undergraduate degree, which resulted in being rejected for the CGS-M. I was funded by my supervisor for my MSc and am currently in my second year as a PhD candidate. I have done a 180 since my undergrad days, but it is still a black mark on my application. My PGS-D application was forwarded to NSERC for the past 2 years and I was first on the wait list last year. This is my final year for eligibility, so I'm hoping my other credentials and proposal negate doing poorly in a few course 10 years ago. Supervisors always want students with their own funding (free labour), especially in the current research funding climate. But you may be able to find someone with money who is willing to take you on, it happened to me twice. You just have to have the special something that sets you apart and makes them have faith in you and believe you will be productive. Don't give up!

Wow, that seems early... or do the PDF results usually come out a lot earlier those for the PGS-D? Good luck on the short-list!

I think it is fine to do this if you go about it in a transparent, civil, and polite manner. Students always undersell themselves - why not try to get the best deal you can get? Of course, tread lightly and don't end up shooting yourself in the foot by being too aggressive about it.

Interesting, I wondered why the CGS-M due date was so different this year. I don't like the idea of the NSERC awards being institutionalized like this; I hope the PGS doesn't go this way (although I'm sure it will).

My PGS-D application was forwarded and I was informed that the results would be released sometime in April (probably mid to late). I am not sure how much this relates to the CGS-M program if there have been significant changes. That said, I still wouldn't expect anything before April. Good luck.

Living in the moment, eh?

If it helps, you can always romanticize your poverty by making it out to be a big sacrifice in the name of the pursuit of knowledge and a glimpse of reality.

I checked my status today and it was changed to, "Approved", which I am guessing means that my application will be forwarded to NSERC again. The waiting begins! Hope everyone else has good news.

My experiences and opinions don't necessarily reflect my field. They are my own experiences and opinions. I use harsh language because I don't believe in going along with the status quo if I think it is fundamentally wrong. I don't understand how anyone could justify being first author on a paper they didn't write. What would happen if your PI/author made an error or unethical judgement and the editors and peers looked to you for answers/blame? Not all grad students kowtow to their superior's whims or what they are told the field is "really like". If you want to make positive changes you have to be brave, not go with the flow and, in 15 years, simply pass on this passive nature to the new generation of scientists. Things like the open access movement and breaking down of old school hierarchical ways in science wouldn't be happening if we all defended the status quo. We are educated people; we are literally trained to question things, not accept them at face value.

I am in biology. Both of my supervisors have been mid-career researchers with great reputations and no longer worry about their annual publication count, so that could have something to do with why I wasn't treated in the manner you have described. Read this below: The ICMJE now recommends that authorship be based on the following four criteria: (1) substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; and (2) drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and (3) final approval of the version to be published; and (4) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work thereby ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. All those designated as authors of a manuscript submitted to ICMJE member journals should meet all four criteria. Just because I am in someone's lab and they are paying for supplies and salary doesn't mean they are entitled to be an author on a side project that they played no part in. I consider it unethical to stamp names on a publication just because someone is your supervisor, got you a cup of coffee, etc. Large collaborative papers are becoming increasingly common, and N. American journals and granting agencies are now starting to become more critical about the criteria for why someone is considered an author. In Europe and Asia it is still more hierarchical and their funding situation is different, hence the long list of names on many of the papers. But things are changing here. I find it surprising, even disturbing, that students are first authors on papers that they didn't actually write the draft for and simply collected and analyzed data and made "revisions". I'm sure such revisions were trepidatious and if the supervisor doesn't agree with them there is no discussion. Supervisors who have this mentality are doing a great disservice to their students and should realize that their students' needs and goals should be more important than their annual report. I guess they will be the next army of publication mill commadants. Or maybe they will simply not be able to enter academia, because they haven't learned to be independent and confident researchers and disseminators.

This is very different from the two labs I have been in. In each case, the students/post-docs were given a lot more freedom than in the situation you describe. I believe my research potential would be hindered if I was in a lab such as the ones described in this thread. Heck, I have even published a few papers where I was the sole author, because I devised and conducted all research and writing by myself. I have chosen where I wanted to publish in all of my first author publications. I discussed it with the other authors and my supervisor of course, but ultimately when and where I published was my decision. I always have a couple side projects on the go that are independent of my thesis and the PI's agenda. It's all about maturing as a researcher and loving to ask questions and find ways to answer them. I suppose it has a lot to do with the "academic status" of you supervisor, funding, their mentoring style, and their sense of control over their lab and personnel.

I would leave it out. Lots of people don't have their parents paying their way through school and have to work. Including this information, however you word it, will probably end up weaking your proposal. I would only mention it if you had to excuse something like a poor GPA at some point in time. Why not focus on your strengths and leave it at that? Your story simply isn't unique enough to impress reviewers.

I am in a small field and one of the most respected journals has an IF around 2.0. I base my opinion on the quality of articles I've read from the journal, as well as the opinion of others in the field. There is a journal in my field with an IF of 5.5-6 and I would NEVER publish my work there. The quality is poor and the founder/editor is sleazy and plays all the tricks to pump up the IF. With open source journals and most things being available online, IF of a journal doesn't really mean that much to me. You'd expect the most cutting edge and revolutionary papers to be in the big journals with huge IF, but when you look at other journals the IF doesn't really mean that much in my opinion. I also think the whole IF thing is now a bit of a popularity game that is no longer very informative. As a young researcher, one should go for the higher IF journals to boost their CV, but they shouldn't take it too seriously.