poseidon2012

I didn't get CGS, but the regulations are online: 4 weeks: http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/using-utiliser/guide-A/regulations-reglements-eng.aspx#a3

Too right, Eagle-Bear. In fact, you said it much better than I could. It's crucial to separate out (hard though it may be) personal from professional rejection. Professional rejection ought to lead to seeking out better-informed individuals to improve the research statement, as well as improving the other parts (CV, transcript etc). Though professional rejection can be capricious, there is often a consensus by juries. Some of these people have seen many applications and their judgment (though in no way infallible) should be given some credence. If people are feeling personally rejected, that is utterly normal and something that everyone feels. But if it does not abate, then one has to ask oneself some serious questions. There is a distressing lack of irreverence in this profession. One can accept the judgment of professionals without seeing it as a judgment on oneself. More often than not it is a judgment on one's experience in writing applications, the availability/attendance of workshops, the quality of feedback and, yes, the shifting tastes of juries. On one level,I've never looked for external validation (pleasant though it may be) as an ultimate goal in itself, as that would leave one with no inner resources and completely at the whims of others. But more to the point, good luck for all those who haven't heard and who are contemplating re-submission!

I'd like to thank everyone over the past three years who has contributed to the forum. It is a real emotional rollercoaster to keep getting up the energy to apply each year. But it's worth it. I know of one person here in the States who has taught 30 courses as an adjunct: that would equal a 3-year SSHRC. In my first year, I didn't get out of the Cdn. university I was at, though I was 1/20 in the department (to last year's inquisitive mind, yes, departmental rankings leak). It was pretty irritating to not even get a chance to compete. The screening process at the university was opaque. Last year, I got to the second round out of the States and then scored 16.2 on the waitlist. Normally, second round U.S. candidates have a 50% success rate, so when it doesn't go through, i's pretty frustrating. This year, I re-did the research statement for the third time. I had a new person come in who completely re-edited a different but allied subject. The editing was intense but ultimately successful: I got 26.55/30 and a two-year SSHRC. Although I partially agree that juries can be mercurial, I agree with RosamundReage that re-writing the proposal with breadth in mind can be very useful. It's one of the few things in our control. The more readers outside your field the better. In fact, I'd do any workshops you can get your hands on. Each faculty member may have their own partial perspective, but they'll often have some kind of insight you can use. I can't remember the scoring breakdown, but it's something like 40% proposal, 20% letters, 20% transcripts, 20% CV (this could be way off, but I've had former SSHRC jury members suggest something like that). I know some of you have been (somewhat) justifiedly skeptical about peoples' CVs, but for the record here goes: -MA SSHRC -4.0 GPA Masters/PHD -horrendous undergrad -3 RAs -3TAs -6 years academic publishing experience -full U.S. PhD funding -two conferences -one book contract My proposal this year was very different and much better edited and written (thanks to the input from a very senior academic). I suspect the letters were better too, given that they'd gotten to know me. But in response to those here who feel the research statement takes precedence over everything else, I should add one thing: this year's application could not have gone up 10 points soley on the statement. It had to do with getting a contract to co-edit a text for a major academic publisher. My hunch is that juries speed-read the research statements and then look for things that stand out in the other areas. The contract stood out. Finally, let me add to the chorus of those who advise not to despair. Throughout my academic journey, which started many years ago, with a significant break, I've encountered the very good, the very bad and the ugly. I've had great mentors and those who said I should give up. I've had one-time supporters become enemies and enemies become supporters. In a long-term endeavor such as this, your resolve is going to be tested. But I will leave you with this: find those who encourage your work. Look around. Have the directors of your theses supervised a lot of people? Did they get jobs? Did they like the experience of being supervised by X, Y or Z? Fundamental questions that often go unasked. Ask them. My best of luck to everyone. And for those who feel rejected, I know what you're feeling. But when the results are published, look at the projects that were funded, the jury that selected and start the process all over again. The best of luck.

Although I require a permanent Canadian address for my visa, I put down my U.S. address and (so far) have not had problems with letters arriving (since I've applied over the past 2 years), so I'm sure a Manitoba address will ensure (eventual!) delivery.

I wonder why SSHRC does this. If governments are enamoured with best practices, they should be following such developments as electronic submissions of reference letters (referees in the States think the SSHRC system is hopelessly antiquated). I suppose one could badger the Minister responsible for SSHRC through the National Graduate Caucus of the CFS.

Thanks for confirming the postmark. That makes sense. It usually gets to Buffalo the next day.

Even better then!

Interesting detail. So we won't be able to tell then by the thickness...

Still no mail in the States. Three times I've received mail on Thursdays when SSHRC sends it out the previous Friday. But their Twitter announcement was late on Friday, which means I'll have to wait another business day. By this time, I'm ready for acceptance or rejection, but I'd really just like to know!

Just a comment on the comment: SSHRC is also not the only game in town. I'm surprised by how many Canadians don't check out the States. They have a lot of money down here. They often fly you in for interviews. And they offer 5, 6 or 7 years full funding. If you can get the SSHRC on top of that, then it's smooth sailing. If you're doing something interesting, departments will compete to get you, depending on the field, and they'll offer you further inducements. Such as more cash.

This is awesome advice. Breadth and appeal are the main points. Can't agree more: your supervisor is often not the best person to look over it. Once again, you are not tied to what you say you'll do in the proposal In addition,let's not forget that each year we are competing against a different cohort. It's not just the jury that changes, but the preparedness of each year's applicants.

Great! Let me share one last thing with you. Last year, a grad student got a really awesome job at an ivy league university down here. He seemed to be a middling student without any real publications, but he ground it out. One day I found out that just before being hired at that university, he'd been turned down for a summer teaching job in our department. I asked him about it. The discrepancy seemed unfathomable: not good enough for a shitty summer job but good enough for tenure at an Ivy. But when I asked him about it, he was completely professional: they were looking for other things, it was competitive etc. I thought it was an admirable response. He could have concluded it was random, but it wasn't exactly random. Just different people looking for different things. If there is one thing repeated failure will do to you, unless you let despair permanently embitter you, is to make you work hard, be humble and be a happy warrior. I like to see it as a contest: you're dropped in the middle of a dark wood. Can you get out?!

Thanks for postiing this, Wrenochka. I was pretty demoralized myself when I was rejected my first year. Let me say three initial remarks: 1) I know that your CV is stronger than people who have won the CGS; 2) if you look at the SSHRC juries (they are published sometime after the awards are released) you'll get a flavour for who was judging; it's pretty revealing. Each jury is very different, from different regions, different research inclinations; 3) you did the best you could. In greater depth, I'd look at a few things. First, if your supervisor is baffled, I'd get further feedback from others. My application was shredded by a SSHRC workshop three years ago; it was shredded again in the States two years ago; and last year it was completely revised and ruthlessly edited by a team of new researchers. I've tried to always get further input. This strategy might fail. Maybe it will fail. But I've at least sought out other feedback. And this I can truly say: if DTrain has qualms about juries, which I partially share, nevertheless juries are populated with (some of) the people you may eventually be working with in whatever field you've chosen. They will be on the editorial boards, hiring committees and writing reader reports for articles and book-length proposals. I'd hear what they have to say (something we're not afforded by SSHRC). Some of the feedback may be useless, but some of it may make you rethink your strategy. Good luck in the future. You've already accomplished a lot. Whisky sounds good. And then back to the drawing board! I was in the same boat two years ago with publications: it seemed hopeless to re-do a proposal when one couldn't improve one's publishing record in time for the next round but, as I've stated before, I've known several people who've gotten the CGS without publishing anything. That said, after last year I managed to get a publishing contract. So think of it as a long obstacle course. You may not have something ready for next year's application, but you'll be planting the seeds for the following year's application. And you never know: those fickle juries may just wind up favouring you next year!

First, congratulations. I've been there: not out of the dept. etc. I hear where you're coming from. Juries can be fickle, it's true. On the other hand, there are several posters from last year who struck out 4/4. As for publications, don't despair! I'd try every avenue, including collaborative approaches. I was in academic publishing for a long time, so I know that trying a variety of outlets can work out in the end. Good luck!

Not cheesy in the least. News is awesome. Congratulations. Really helpful to hear your story. Low GPAs in undergrad can be a killer (I know), so good of you to share your story in-depth. Really glad to hear it!

That's frustrating. Your CV looks good. I'm in the same boat with respect to a field that is little known. Keep at it. Here's a couple of pieces of advice. Get some fresh eyes to look at the research statement. That's really helped me. Even outside your university. You've mentioned good reference letters, but from whom? I've been in a lot of SSHRC workshops as a research administrator and an applicant (I got the MA SSHRC) and I know they value the letters from department heads and full professors. Also note that the research statement does not bind you to what you have to do. I.e. angle it or tilt it to something more accessible and it may go through. That's not being mercenary; it's just being practical. As for the lower score, I know the entire membership of certain juries in the past and there are going to be inevitable biases, though I believe committee members usually try to be objective. Once again, don't lose the faith. Some of us have been there before; some of us will be there again!

Congratulations! Excellent news and excellent advice. Love your thickness remark. I'll keep it in mind tomorrow when my letter should arrive. And thanks for all the detail: helpful to me; helpful to all of us.

This sounds solid. Publishing is helpful,but I've known several people who have gotten CGS with no publishing and others who have been rejected with. That's not to say it's merely a crapshoot or that publishing doesn't count, but it is not the tipping point. As someone who has been through this rodeo a few times, I would spend the bulk of time on the research statement.

Scoring is very confusing and when you ask SSHRC, they're not very good at explaining it. If you look at last year's thread from May forward there are some people who have attempted to explain it. Basically, if I remember correctly, there are several main groups, such as classics/theology etc. Your score is in relation to applicants in each sub-group, not the group as a whole. Then, when all the awards are given out, it gets even more confusing. At some point, previous year's threads seem to suggest they do a roll-up where they list everyone's score on the waitlist. Whatever the exact method they use, one thing is certain: you can get 18.4 in English and not be funded and 15.9 in Geography and can be funded (those are just randomly chosen subject areas, but the point is clear). I'm sure someone on this forum can explain it better, but one thing to mention is that SSHRC is loath to tell you where you are on the waitlist (I was on it last year). And basing a waitlist score against someone's winning score in another discipline does not work.

Let me add something to this really useful post. I think a lot of people, particularly in Canada, are very hesitant to talk about placement rates in departments and specifically to outline the outcomes for each graduate student. It's really helpful to have someone on your dissertation committee who can write good letters. They're usually known by how many jobs they get for people. There is an awkward reticence among some people to praise others and, of course, in an era of self-promotion, the diffidence of some people who are unaware of the genre of the reference letter, or who deliberately flout its conventions, will wind up basically killing your career.

Thanks Eagle-Bear. That's super-helpful. I really appreciate your answer. I think you're right about policy. Where I'm at, they don't do clawbacks, but they have a fuzzy policy about external/internal and I"ll try to push for that. I don' think a lot of Canadians realize that you can often stack in the States, whereas you can't in Canada.

Dear all, Good luck to everyone as the letters start arriving Monday. By this time, I think we're all curious to see the results. I have a specific question relating to any Canadians in the States. I've heard in the past that SSHRC sends cheques directly to grantholders internationally. But I notice that they have a form to be signed by the Dean of Graduate of Studies. (Of course, your department will know, because you'll tell your referees). I don't want to get ahead of myself, but if the university administration/personal dept. is aware of your grant, do they allow you to have SSHRC and university funding? Or do you have to suspend your university funding during the time you receive the SSHRC? I'm not expecting anyone on here to know this question, since none of us have the SSHRC yet (and may not!). But at the same time it's something worth thinking about. I know in Canada departments often "clawback" some of their own funding if you win the SSHRC. But I've also looked online and I"ve seen several Canadian CVs where people held both SSHRC and internal funding at the same time in the States. At the end of the day, all this no doubt comes down to individual administration and internal department policies, but any thoughts would be welcome. I'm not expecting SSHRC grantholders in the States to read this, but if you do, please let us know about your experience too. Once again, good luck in the coming week. Or if you're outside of North America, the coming weeks!

Last year the first person to post got the news on April 30. And, for those of you in the States, it took about 4 days to go from Ottawa to NYC (they sort it again in Buffalo). I got the news May 3rd. The first phase was much slower getting out than last year, so I'm hoping that all that was dealt with and they'll mail out the second phase results on schedule!

The U.S. A list does fluctuate Eagle-Bear. Note that in 2010-11 the A list rate was only 47% (31 of 66). Earlier years held to a 50-60% rate.

The odds are 4 out of 10 you'll make it to the A round. 1 in 4 get the grant. Overall, approximately 1 in 10 applicants get it. The priorities of juries fluctuate so widely that all this doesn't mean much. After getting to the A round, I had a 60% chance of getting it by applying from the States, but it didn't work out last year.