poseidon2012
-
Posts
38 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by poseidon2012
-
-
Received my letter yesterday (I had no idea there was mail on Saturday). I got 22.6 / 30 and a 2-year fellowship. Such a relief. My info at the time of application:
- MA SSHRC, and 4+ other graduate scholarships (the form only takes 5)
- 3.5 undergrad GPA
- 4.0 MA GPA
- 4.0 PhD GPA
- 2 peer-reviewed articles (1 single-authored)
- 2 'real' conference papers, 2 grad conference papers
- 5 TA positions
- 4 RA positions
- one year overseas work experience between undergrad and master's
- strong references (I assume)
Like others, this is my second pass at this award, so I understand the sting of getting turned down. I didn't even make it to the second round last time. Poseidon's earlier comments on this are exactly right: in my opinion, the process is best interpreted not as a reflection on "you," only those pieces of paper you submitted, and the temperament of the tired professor speed-reading them.
This forum has been such a great resource over the years since way back when I was applying for my MA SSHRC. Kudos to everyone for being so supportive and helpful.Good luck to all current and future applicants!
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.
-
Longtime lurker, new poster. University of Manitoba student, here. I have two questions:
- has anyone else NOT gotten their snail mail yet? Normally it doesn't take this long for a letter to get from Ottawa to Winnipeg.
- am I correct in assuming that they'll use the address that was on my application? I had a different mailing address through the school when I applied in the fall, but put my current address on the SSHRC forms.
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.
-
Yeah I only heard by mail as my institution put an embargo on giving out results. It seems some Universities are being kind and letting people know ahead of time so they do not have to suffer waiting for snail mail! It looks like maybe they are telling you something by sending you that email. If they are emailing people information they may give you the results over the phone. A few people on here won and didn't hear a peep from their institutions before they got the letter. I won CGS and no one at my university thought it might be nice to email me on Friday when they got the results (they actually probably got the results earlier than that).
On a side note my university hasn't even sent me anything even after I received my letter, you think they could send out a measly congratulations. When I called the awards office to tell them I was accepting they sounded irritated I was bothering them and wouldn't even tell me how my guaranteed funding would change. They usually only win 4 or 5 CGS' a year so you think they could give us a little special attention.
I don't want to sound bitter but this wait was awful and I am pretty upset how the stress has derailed my work this month. My university could have alleviated some of this stress by just emailing people if they got it or not- the last week was the worst and they could have prevented it. Some people found out they won over a week ago, if we can believe what was written on this thread then it is really silly to make all these people suffer when it would take a very small amount of time for each institution to email out the results. I think they are changing how SSHRC is decided next year- from my understanding each university will have a quota and decide just like OGS this year. I hope this new format will take out some of the wait time and universities will just post the results online instead of using the antiquated mail system.
For those still waiting for a letter do not despair it still could be good news!
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.
-
Mine was also postmarked Monday. Though it does say on the Canada post website mail takes 3 days to get from Ottawa to Toronto, so it would have gotten here super fast if it was mailed on Monday. The letter inside was dated the 25th of April.
Thanks for confirming the postmark. That makes sense. It usually gets to Buffalo the next day.
-
It did feel fairly thick though because those 3 pages are folded.
Even better then!
-
Oh, and on the subject of envelope thickness: there were only three pages in my envelope.
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!
-
Hello,
If I may comment on your post I would say that it appears to me that the problem could be your proposal because it can't be the cv (awards and research). So i would try to improse my proposal (share it with as many people as you can, especially the familly non familiar with the topic!). Plus, I was told that the way to present the proposal is sometime more important than the content as far as the jury usually do not know your topic... And I think it's very important to put very clearly what would be the outcomes of your research... for Canada mainly.
I know it's no consolation, but you are still in your master and you did not start the phd yet. I was in the same position two years ago. I applied again during my first year of phd and I got this year a Bombardier scholarship. I know it's pretty hard to get the award before starting the phd.
I am sure next year will be very different! so don't give up,
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.
-
Some advice for people rejected. I too was rejected last year and didn't even make it out of my university, I was crushed. I do have a publication and numerous conferences, but I think what won me the CGS was my proposal. This year I completely revamped my topic over the summer, developing a really innovative idea which concentrated on Canada. I know people are really tied to their research but coming up with a "sexy" idea for your proposal goes a long way. I have spoken to numerous adjudicators and this is what they all say- the proposal is the most important thing. It needs to be very easy to understand why the Canadian government needs to fund this research. You can have the best CV in the world but you will not get funded if you do not have an appealing proposal- note appealing is the operative word. Also, remember you have to have an amazing first sentence- I worked for months on just that- because they read so many of these you have to hook them right away.
I spent months refining my proposal and even though I hate sending off unpolished drafts for critique I did numerous times. I went to every workshop and sent it to every department chair and graduate advisor. You need to get a lot of people outside of your discipline to read it because they will be on the jury- I sent mine to people in 5 different fields. Because supervisors usually do the same type of research they are actually not always the best people to only take advice from because they will not give you the breadth your proposal will need (they do help with the depth though).
Everyone who has won has been rejected from something before and I know it is hard and believe me I know the crushing feeling. i really urge those rejected to start this summer talking to many different academics on how to make your proposal stand out. Think about starting from scratch- that really helped me. You also really need at least 7 or 8 full drafts so start sending out drafts ASAP.
I am sure there is some element of luck or divine intervention in this, but successful proposals really do have a certain formula. Try to get your hands on some and you will see what I mean.
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.
-
This is really helpful for me, too. Thank you! I somehow feel more relieved than disappointed right now. Perhaps the rejection is still unreal...
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?!
-
I finally received a letter today informing me that my application was rejected (successful applicants in my department heard by email on Monday, so I just assumed). I'm finishing my MA right now - I had been planning to start my PhD in September.
I've been putting off posting this because I'm so depressed about it, and embarrassed about my score (15.7/30). I know there have been a lot of posts about the seemingly arbitrary nature of the adjudication (thanks for your post especially, DTrain), but it's still very painful. I'm sure there are a lot of people who've been rejected who prefer not to post their profile for this reason. Here's my profile - I hope it's some consolation for others in my position, if only to let you know you aren't alone:
- 3.94 master's GPA
- MA SSHRC + several major awards, including an entrance fellowship, an internal award, a national prize for grad students in my discipline, and an undergraduate researcher award
- 3 peer-reviewed conferences (1 international, 2 national), 2 non-peer reviewed student conferences, 1 invited guest lecture
- 0 publications
- 4 RAships, including two overseas project positions
- 2 TAships
- high ranking by my department, forwarded by my university
- strong letters from two well-known scholars in my field, my supervisor and the research chair who I've RA'd for, both of whom enthusiastic about my proposal
- solid proposal, multiple drafts, reviewed and edited with supportive feedback from my referees & other professors in my discipline who have a great record of supporting successful applicants
To be honest, the score feels like more of a rejection than not receiving funding, because it's clear that I wasn't even close to receiving funds and I know I did the best that I could. I really need funding to pursue my PhD, so I'm anxious about whether I should defer a year and work instead. I am first on the waiting list for our provincial awards, but to judge from others' experiences last year, I likely won't hear for a while, and possibly not until the end of the summer.
My supervisor is as baffled as I am about the score. I applied knowing I had only a 50%-60% chance, so I didn't assume I would be funded - but I thought I was more competitive than a 15.7. It feels like such a personal rejection to receive a score that low after receiving such positive feedback from my mentors, and knowing that others in my discipline were funded with similar profiles. It's especially demoralizing not knowing how I could have improved my application. I guess it has to be the proposal, in spite of my referees' feedback - I really don't think having no publications would result in a score that low, especially for an applicant heading into year 1 of the PhD, but who knows. In any case, I don't have time to prepare a publication before the next application round, which makes me feel even more hopeless.
I think it's time to retire for the night with a glass of whiskey and some brainless tv. Hopefully after a good night's sleep I'll feel a little more resilient.
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!
-
Hi all, I've been a long time lurker on this forum but I'm posting here for the first time, mostly out of frustration at the absolute arbitrariness of the entire SSHRC award process.
I've been applying to SSHRC for four years in a row and have finally received good news this year, scoring a 26/30 and getting a one-year scholarship (I'm entering my Phd IV).
I say I am frustrated and find this process arbitrary because I've been applying with a relatively identical application for 4 years, and yet I was rejected twice (as in, I didn't even make it past my own department) and waitlisted the other time (with no luck), until I finally received it this year.
Now, granted, my application has improved a bit this time around, as I now also had an OGS under my belt, but I have had zero progress in terms of publications, conference presentations, or the quality of my references - and I can honestly say that my while I tweaked my research statement a bit each year, the changes were hardly fundamental enough to warrant a hike in my score from a 16/30 to a 26/30.
I think my experience has really proven to me that while as applicants we of course try our hardest to prove we are 'worthy' scholars (by obsessively editing our statements, attending conferences, attempting to get published, etc.), so much of the process behind getting awards like SSHRC is in fact little more than luck of the draw and depends on a whole range of factors beyond our control (our departmental committees, the strength of our colleagues' applications, SSHRC adjudicators of a given year, etc.). So, for ex, while I find the stats that people have been posting on this forum to be useful in gauging how awards are distributed, I think they can also be rather misleading and create an unnecessary sense of panic among those who have, say, no publications, presentations, RAships, etc.
Of course, I don't mean to understate the amount of work that successful recipients have put into their applications or to question the true worth of their work, but if my experience is any indication, the 'worthiness' of that effort is judged in really inconsistent and unpredictable ways and is by no means an objective measure. If we're lucky enough to receive an award, I think it's really important to recognize the arbitrariness of this privilege - and if we don't receive it, to realize that this is by no means a reflection of the strength of our work and that better luck may be around the corner in future years to come...
I'm sorry if this post seems really negative and cynical, but somehow after finally getting this scholarship I feel a whole lot more rage than a sense of relief!
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!
-
THE LETTER FINALLY CAME!
I was already informed by Graduate Studies from my university (Concordia) so I knew I got it but the letter makes it all official. I am only funded 40K because I have two year left. My score is 22.5/30
This is my third time applying for SSHRC. My grades were too low in undergrad to apply to OGS and/or SSHRC for my MA.
Stats when applied
- 2.7/4 GPA for BA
- 4.17/4.3 MA GPA
- 4.2/4.3 PhD GPA
- 2 very strong letters — from supervisor (University Chair) and from a Canada Research Chair
- 1 peer reviewed publication forthcoming (sole author)
- 1 review in peer reviewed publication
- 1 encyclopedia entry (1st author)
- 6 non peer reviewed publications (sole author)
- 2 peer reviewed conferences
- 4 conferences
- 4 invited talks
- 9 adjudicated group exhibitions
- 6 RAs & GAs
- 2 TAs
- 1 studio instructor position
- OGS for PhD (declined because went to Quebec)
- 3 year entrance fellowship for PhD at Concordia
- Concordia Merit Scholarship
- Several travel funds from Concordia and York
- Several fieldwork & research bursaries from York for my MA thesis
-
Canadian Media Research Consortium Small Research Grant
not sure what else I put on for research contributions.
I also used the special section to explain my low undergrad GPA.
First time I applied for SSHRC PhD, I was forwarded by York, and got an atrocious low score of something like less than 10. 2nd time I was not even forwarded from Concordia (my PhD school).
I'd like to say that I completely changed my Application Statement less than 2 weeks before the deadline. I am still working within the broader category of my field, but after I finished my doctoral exam I had a crazy epiphany and decided to write something new from scratch. Some thought I was insane, but my supervisor told me to go for it. I was very lucky to have a team of people help me get my initial idea/draft into a cogent articulate application. So, sometimes having an intuition and inspiration is worth pursuing. My previous app was worked on for since the previous year, but I couldn't do that to myself when I had such an intense feeling to change it. This was also 7 days before FQRSC was due (and I received that also).
So, despite the amazing prize to help pay off my student loans, I am so thrilled that my intuition and energy paid off and that I should always follow my gut. *excuse the cheeziness but ho-lee I am beyond excited since I was sure I was a lost cause*
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!
-
The donkey cart arrived with bad news.
Second time applying, second time shortlisted, second time without an award. Here are my stats at time of application.
1 peer-reviewed publication
2 invited/in-progress articles
1 conference
2 grad conferences
3.95 GPA (my undergrad was very bad, but my MA was much better)
Multiple TAships
I am fairly positive my reference letters were excellent. I did not read these but I did read others that they wrote for different things.
I do not know my rank in the department or university.
Conference organizer
Editor-in-Chief of the department's peer-reviewed journal
My score this year is 14.5/30. Last year it was 15.something/30. This year's application was refined and clear and I had multiple readers and editors. Funny it scored less.
My project is not an area that anyone knows about. I am the only one doing it in North American, and there are only a few scholars in the world that even know my area. Although the SSHRC people don't know it, I am actually one of the experts in this extremely small, obscure, specialty.
Anyway, I will try again. Since the original application I was offered a teaching position next year, invited to write another article for a peer-reviewed journal (a special edition on my area of expertise), and am presenting at two major peer-reviewed conferences in my field. So, at least, it wouldn't be lack of experience.
Totally bummed. I do have internal funding for another 2 years. Not much, but it'll do.
Good luck everyone!
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.
-
Sounds like a solid profile, the only thing missing is a pub or two. So if you can even get a forthcoming on your application next time, you'd still be in the running for CGS, so dont let this get you down mate. Better luck next time. BIG HUGS
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.
-
I am a bit confused (again) about how the point system works. So, I understand that there are several categories, but is there some kind of quota for each school as well? Out of the 1931, some must be direct applicants, and what about the rest of us applying from our universities? Are all applicants assessed equally according to the points, hence some schools having more award winners than other schools?
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.
-
I think this is a brilliant point! the reference letters carry a large wight, and not all faculty are amazing at writing those. It really is more of a skill as you have to hit a number of key points in those letters. So for everyone applying next time around, you really want to be very strategic in deciding who will write your references. It also really helps if those people were well regarded in their field and surrounding sub areas.
Also to the point that AmandaG made, i completely agree with that as well. I also spend weeks and weeks and weeks. In total i had nine full drafts before the final, and had sent out many of my drafts to five different faculty members often multiple times, with my two referees seeing every single draft!. So i think you really want to get the faculty involved and in a way peer-review yourself. Get a variety of faculty members even ones that have nothing to do with your area as this mimics the conditions of the actual committee makeup.
It was a lot of work, if i had to put and hour number to mine i'd say i put in perhaps somewhere around 100 hours.
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.
-
I'm at UC Berkeley and made clear early on with my department what the conditions were on that. Basically, my department doesn't do "claw-backs" (in contrast to my alma maters UBC and U of T, where they would have substituted the SSHRC award for your internal funding). As you can imagine, this puts an insanely large incentive for getting one, since it stacks on top of whatever other internal or external funding.
This probably varies by institution, and maybe even within the UC, but I suspect that since most departments simply don't have enough Canadians to warrant a policy about SSHRCs, that your department might also allow you to stack your scholarships.
Fingers crossed!
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!
-
Also made it to the A round, applying from the States. Those numbers poseidon quoted seem right. You can check and cross-reference success rates according to a whole bunch of applicant characteristics here: http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/results-resultats/stats-statistiques/index-eng.aspx.
Looks like the success rate for applicants who applied from American universities after proceeding to the A list dropped from 72.1% in 2011 to 63.8% in 2012. Hopefully that trend won't continue up to now. In general, though, these statistics show that A-listed applicants from the US tend to fare better than A-listed applicants from Canada, who had success rates of 24.2% in 2011 and 25.3% in 2012.
Ugh. Gonna try not to think about this until May.
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.
-
If you're a direct applicant from outside Canada, it depends on the country you're applying from (that's all the data they compiled I think). You can check the stats on SSHRC's website.
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.
SSHRC Doctoral Fellowship/CGS Doctoral Scholarship 2013
in The Bank
Posted
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