guttata

Ok, you're not trolling, you're blind. You're posting in the GRFP thread, not the EAPSI thread. Totally different programs with totally different notification times and acceptance rates.

You can't change at this point, and it doesn't matter; you're not locked in to the project you proposed, and you're not locked into the school you marked, either. They "fund the researcher, not the research," as they say. Really, you're not even locked in to the specific field you mentioned, though I suspect you'd run into some difficulty if you proposed sociology and tried to switch to chemistry, for example.

I.E., magpies is trolling guys, calm down.

Why would you assume they'd be 1.00? Even real MS Office defaults to 1.25...

With the NSF you have 5 years to use 3 years of funding, in any way you want. 3 years consecutively; 1 year on, 1 year off, 1 year on, 1 year off; 2 years on, 2 off, etc etc etc... I have a 4 year fellowship at my current school and a 5 year plan to graduate. If I'm awarded this year, I'll use 2 years of my current fellowship (this year and next year) and then finish up with my 3 years of NSF funding.

No. The cost of education allowance is a tuition payment directly to the university, is it not?

Seems like a cool program, I read the Dear Colleague Letter a day or two ago. In glancing through the materials, though, this program is much more limited in scope, at least for the Nordic countries. It's not like EAPSI where you can propose to work with almost anyone with a professorship, you're limited to working with one of the Nordic Centers of Excellence (long-term grants provided to certain collaborative teams by the host country's NSF-equivalent). France didn't have any lists up and I didn't look at any of the Pacific countries, but I expect they're similarly limited. I didn't find anything that was remotely related to my area of study.

That sounds like a good idea to me. I was a little surprised when I got the CC'd emails. Why in the world would you give the applicant access to their login info??

Put it in. Format could be, roughly: Jones, Smith, and Smith. In re-review. This is your title. Journal.

I don't think specifics matter terribly (may vary by field), but as part of my broader impacts I have a rather general line about "will publish and present at meetings." As for citations, I don't use an in-text citation at all, only superscript. I'll switch to "et al" for anything more than 2 (e.g. Smith and Jones vs Smith, Jones, and Smith = Smith et al)

There's no requirement that these be on the page, and as there are blanks on Fastlane for them, I assume they're not needed. I also don't have space for them, so I'm not putting them on.

Not until Monday. Life Sciences. Not quite 6 months, they announced last year in late March, I think. It was much earlier than previous years, but even the later dates have been early April. Still submit. Even if you don't get anything, it's incredibly helpful to get any comments back from reviewers (even shitty, aimless ones), regardless of what people may have told you about the comments being unhelpful. Plus, anything you've written or got comments on means you aren't starting from square 1 next year. Heck, you could even start revising in April, if you felt so inclined (I wouldn't recommend it). Well, it helps to not be a crazy person. It's one award. Yes, it's a big one, but it's not make or break for your career. If it is, you're at the wrong school, with the wrong professor, or have the wrong priorities for getting in to science. Lots of capable scientists have gotten this award; lots of capable scientists didn't. Hell, out of 2k awards/year, some of the awardees are fuckups, too (I can think of several.... Reviewers/review processes are human). And - I've said this before, I'll say it again - at a certain point, this whole thing becomes a crapshoot and it's luck of the draw, depending on whether you get asshole/idiot/fantastic reviewers. Trust me, the assholes/idiots will show up when you try to publish, too.

My institution doesn't offer any form of electronic transcripts either. Scanning and uploading is fine - there's no requirement that it be an official transcript.

Yes, you'll be able to continue to log in after the deadline. Letter writers have until the 27th to submit. NONE of mine have done it yet - no worries.

Do a search for "Broader Impacts" on everything the NSF asks for down south.... It's not that uncommon. How is your work immediately impacting those around you? How are you impacting others' experiences in science?

I report a 0.0 out of 0 earned credits. Gets the message across. Obviously no one applying is going to have a true 0.0 GPA.

No. I've never seen this in any of the example essays I've looked at (Titles I have, rarely; keywords, never) and there are blanks in the submission form specifically for short title and long title+keywords.

Weird. Perhaps it was just a horror story, but I saw somewhere someone had been informed they were disqualified from the competition because the system had picked up text in their margins. At any rate, they seem to be firm re: the 2 page limit, and i'm wary about putting anything on mine that could be construed as stretching the limit.

Don't put them in your essay. DEFINITELY don't put anything in the margins - automatic disqualification. There's no reason to include anything but the body of the essay and your citations in the essay document. That's what the title and keyword blanks are for. The system will compile everything. I'm in the same situation, and so was a winner from my lab last year. Get an official enrollment verification from your registrar. It will show that you're currently enrolled, and since you'll report on the application that you have 0 credit hours for a 0.0 GPA, they'll know there's nothing to see.

If it's awarded in the same manner the GRF is, the awards per subheading is roughly the equivalent to the percentage of applications per subheading. Edited because I didn't English very good.

Also just to play devil's advocate here: if you stand up and say, "Everyone in this department is insufferable except me!", well.... I wonder where the problem might be...

I'm using an enrollment verification because as a first year student, my transcript won't have anything extra on it. A winner from my lab used this last year during his first year. What you're describing is deliberately hiding information, and I doubt that they'll accept a simple enrollment verification if you've completed an entire year. My recommendation is to use your real transcript.

No. Why would you? All it does is take up space for your essay and as the essays all have separate upload spaces, I'm guessing when things are printed or parsed out for the reviewers all the necessary information is included by the system. If you're talking about putting things in the margin, then its a terrible idea to do it, because it will get you automatically disqualified for using more than your 1 inch margin allowed space. The LORs are not your concern. You should ask your writers if they can/are willing to write you a strong letter, perhaps discuss a few things that they should include, and then let them do their job. Demanding that they write you a 2 page letter isn't going to win you any favors. Were these courses strictly graduate courses? At my current school, if there's a class that grads and undergrads take together, there's a 4000 version for registration for undergrads and a 6000 registration for grads, even though they're in the same classroom. In that case, no, you wouldn't list anything. The way you're talking about things (since you say they don't count for grad work) makes me think this is similar for your case. Edit: After re-reading, no, you shouldn't include those classes because they weren't going toward a graduate degree. Didn't you already ask this question in this thread????

Yes, I know of several specific programs that have done it and a couple schools that I was rejected from last year actually told me they would reverse their decision if I got the GRF when I called to check on my status. All of my experience is with biology programs, but I'd rather not call out the specific programs. You'll find that the official policy at almost every school says "decisions are final" or "external funding won't influence decisions" because they have to. The NSF says they don't want winning the GRF to get someone in to school. In practice, most schools don't follow their "official" policy

+1 to snowblossom's reply. There's no way anyone had an acceptance reversed after being awarded the GRF. What IS possible is that they waited too long, passed their acceptance deadline, and were then rejected despite holding a GRF offer. Either you misunderstood, or they misrepresented their story. I have heard of several cases of a quick, "Hey, i got the GRF" phone call resulting in a magic acceptance letter appearing, however.