marty3

Thanks for starting this thread. I'm also a current fellow, and they helped me when I applied, so I thought I'd share my 2 cents on the POS. I think the proposed POS essay is very important, just much easier to write than the others. I think a big focus of this fellowship is for their fellows to gain a lot of breadth during their graduate studies, and the POS is one way to show that. If you can find 1 or 2 courses outside your field (e.g. math/cs courses for an engineer) that are relevant to your research/HPC essays, it could help a lot. In the 2014-15 thread, similar things were suggested that helped me out. Also, read all the rules on POS courses, even in the FAQ. My guess is that being asked to change courses usually stems from them.

I too went from HM to winner. Here are things I did that might have helped: -- Improved personal statement structure: I went from a standard essay to an essay with headers for Academics, Research, and BI, and also Intro and Conclusion. I believe this is a requirement now, but in any case, I'm not a great writer and this drastically improved the structure of my essays. -- Discuss things in more depth: I have 2 particular examples I drastically improved in my essays. For academics, I emphasized the number of grad classes I took as an undergrad (>10 quarters), and went into details on my 2 favorite courses (which motivated my graduate studies). For BI volunteer work, I discussed science competitions, both how they made me who I am today, and how my volunteer work (both interactive judging and just test writing) will hopefully impact competitors in the same way. -- Read as many reviewer comments as you can: Many people close to winning only get good comments rather than constructive criticism. Don't just look for criticisms. Read as many good comments from friends' applications as possible and tweak your essays to support them all. You'll find ways to appeal to many possible reviewers. -- Actually rewrite the essays: In theory, an HM candidate could resubmit their essays and win the next year. I know a few people who have just resubmitted and went from HM to nothing. You can definitely keep parts of your essays if they work, but make every effort to improve them. My personal statement was about half old, half new, and the proposal was entirely new.

I agree with Eigen. I generally say NSF GRFP recipient, rather than fellow.

I just got pulled from the waitlist!!!! Apparently there are a few more awards coming out, but of course, I couldn't actually inquire about them. Best of luck if anyone is still waiting.

CONGRATS! (although I will, of course, be forever in your debt if you decline. :-) ) Just curious, did they give you any timeline on when to accept/decline?

Just got my official waitlist notification. I was also told I was designated as a DOE CSGF Honorable Mention recipient in my letter, and that I should list it on my resume/CV. Apparently there were only 7 awards made this year.

For previous years, anyhow.

I just checked the results page. There seems to be a few days delay between the mass rejection emails and the acceptance phone calls. It's possible even nobody was accepted today. That's what I'm hoping, anyway.

Hmm. I haven't heard anything. Anyone else still waiting?

In the past they sent out rejection emails to most applicants first, then made offers to the winners, and then, after all awarded fellowships were accepted, they sent out the final round of rejections (3-4 weeks later) with a cryptic email along the lines of "you passed the final round of selection but just didn't win". Sounds like they reject and offer awards, except for a few candidates who are put on a waitlist.

There are also lots of pages views, despite there only being a few posters. Hi lurkers!

Ditto. I'm particularly impressed by the verbal GRE scores.

I believe second years were allowed to apply back then, but they can't now. That will help, marginally.

Strange.... My app is 100% still there.

There really are too many variables to make general statements about what will happen if you go to a prestigious school versus somewhere else. Work your butt off and anything can happen. There are good and well-connected people at every school, presitigious or not. Based on what I was told as an undergrad when faced with accepting a graduate school, the only real need to go to a prestigious school is if you are on the fast track (no postdoc) to become a tenured prof at a tier one school. You only really have a chance at that if you're slaving away day and night for someone famous in one of the best programs. If you don't do that, but still want the glamorous lifestyle that goes along with being a famous professor, you can still become one but you need to postdoc for someone famous after gradschool. Again, it's impossible to make such generalizations. Just sharing the view I was told. Your best bet, in my opinion, is to talk about that with your current advisor, boss, or anyone who knows you well. The whole view of postdocs also varies wildly from field to field, and I have a hunch it's more necessary for chemists than engineers.

Thanks for the info. It worries me greatly to hear this, though. Two years ago the funding was drastically cut, and ~8 fellowships were awarded, rather than the usual 20 or so. I really hope that doesn't happen again.

I can only speak for my school and department, but when profs get down to their final list of candidates, preference first goes to candidates with funding, then to students who applied for funding AND they think will win/could win in the future, then lastly to candidates that didn't apply. This is a brutally selective program, so I doubt this is a standard thing, but it makes sense. That's just how an advisor once explained it to me. It really doesn't hurt to apply and mention it in your application. Personally I don't think the SOP is the right place to put it. On my applications there were specific boxes to list externally fellowships I had applied for. Some advice a friend gave me, which might be more what CrucialBBQ could have been thinking, is that it's not always best to let a prospective POI know you have funding. Of course external funding is an excellent bargaining chip, and it really can change a prospective advisor's mind from "I'm taking know students this year" to "I'll take you". That said, the longer they don't know you have your own funding, the better you can gauge a prospective advisor's genuine interest in you and your project.

Whoa! This is crazy to hear about the Australia interview! They generally do have interviews for Australians going to the US. Never heard of them doing interview for Americans going to Australia. I know this isn't what you want to hear, but interviews for Australians tend to be, from what I heard, fairly brutal. They seem "Hertzian" if you've heard of the Hertz fellowship and their notorious interviews (it's probably a bit of an exaggeration to say that, actually). That might stress you out beforehand, but it also means that you can still be hopeful even if it's a complete train wreck. The guy who told me this walked out expecting to be rejected and ended up winning the "Alumni" scholarship for begin the top applicant. Also bear in mind that Fulbrights for Australians are far more competitive than for Americans, so that could also be the reason for the intensity of their interview round. My only suggestion is that you really know your proposal well. Be prepared for the attitude "this isn't very useful" and be able to defend your proposal and say why it is a good project. That's really the worst that can happen. Also, feel free to PM me. I can't say I'll be of much help, but I'm incredibly intrigued.

I was a 2012 Fulbrighter to Australia. Things can, of course, change from year to year, but in my year there were no interviews. You're probably off the hook. ;-)

Ahh, I see it now. It's in the FAQ. Strange how they state this only in the FAQ and nowhere else....

DSYIII, can you post a link to the page that says this thing about taking at most 1/3 of courses before starting the fellowship? I can't find it anywhere on the website. It seems silly, because within the application they state: The POS may contain courses already taken, but cannot include courses taken prior to the academic year coincident with the time of application. Provided courses are taken within the year you apply I think it should be valid, based on this sentence at least.

Well, fortunately I never had to work around all these details. Anyhow, I reviewed my email threads asking these questions. I was on a medical leave of absence, so I guess I overlooked the distinction. Sorry everyone! Regarding leaves/tenures coinciding with start dates, I believe there is more flexibility than you might think. At the time I accepted my award (April 2014) I was unsure when I'd be back at school (Sept. 2014 or Jan 2015, coinciding with my university's semesters). To quote my emails: Me: If I do defer until January, will I start receiving the NSF stipend immediately or will I have to wait until the next June 1/Sept. 1 for it to start? The NSFGRFP Administration Guide says "deferred months are available for use at a later date" (pg. 14) but I would like to ask what that means in my case. NSF: The stipend is distributed to fellows by their institution. You will have to speak with your CO on exact dates once you are on tenure. That's all I know, as I made it back to school in September so it didn't become a problem. You'll have to talk to your CO for a concrete answer, I guess. NSF did tell me to accept my award and immediately select medical deferral. a_elizabeth, I'm not sure what that means for you. Sounds like Eigen knows his stuff. Sorry for any false hope. Your best bet is to contact NSF directly. In my experience (only 1 email) they responded very quickly, albeit very briefly too.

I can't see any of this being a problem. I was on a leave of absence when I won the award. You should be fine as long as you are still enrolled in a program (i.e. on an official leave of absence from your university and not fully withdrawn) or will be enrolled in a program for Fall 2015. Regarding the leave of absence while on the fellowship, that isn't actually a problem. You must declare the months during your leave from your university as "reserve" time and it must be contained within the 5-year time period the fellowship allows. You cannot take a leave from NSF, thereby extending this 5-year time period that you are a fellow.

Sure, but even in detailing a single 1-year project, you should highlight future work that could occupy you for the future. If you knew exactly what you'd be researching and exactly how you'd do it for 5 years, then that would be outlining a dissertation. But if you detail a single short project, and think about future work (which can entirely hinge on outcomes of preliminary work, of course), then you would be "[proving] that you can think critically, logically, and plan feasible and significant research projects" as Guttata said. That, to me, is proposing a 5-year project. Proposing doesn't mean you know exactly what to do and how to do it. It just means that you have thought about it critically. I agree with you all way more than I think you think I do.

At least to me, proposing a 5-year project is very different from laying out an entire dissertation.