vice

I'm finishing my masters and then I'm out. That or I change my focus to industry work. I've fought hard, but there is a class barrier here that I can't beat; not as a white guy anyway...

I didn't get it, not even an HM. I'm really shocked. Is the system really that random?

We will know it is real when we see a flood of people posting both rejections and acceptances. I wonder why the fakers don't go with the "awww I didn't get it," and a fake rejection rather than the less believable "got it."

I'm fairly confident, I got a HM last year and have done a ton more to improve my application. If I didn't get it I would really have a "OMG what more do you want from me," feeling.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/nsf.html It says 30% increase for GRFP.

The links to that page are weird, sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. I had to mess around with nsfgrfp.org vs nsfgraduatefellowships.org and https vs http. You can find a copy of the page on google's Cache if you search for it.

http://www.nsfgrfp.org/about_the_progra ... recipients

15 and 16 are defiantly mid April. April 15 12pm would be the absolute middle of the month Obviously I am just arguing semantics for fun but...

Multi-disciplinary stuff is really popular right now, it could work out well.

I'm fairly sure that it compares people based on "graduate school experience" regardless of the field that it came from. That is why people who complete their masters first are often disqualified for the GRFP as they already have too many graduate credit hours.

I think tomorrow is the last day of "Early April." 1--10 == Early April 11--20 == Mid April 21--30 == Late April 1--15 == First half of April 16--30 == Second half of April It clearly says "Early April."

Yeah, I give up for the day after 12. I keep a window open to the forum, just because I'm at a computer anyway

I acually got my research essay published as a conference paper Of course I added a little bit more... hope that is a good sign.

Yes, they do take that into account and award people from each category differently. I think it is: 100% undergrad Less than 12 months graduate More than 12 months graduate I posted a link back on page 80 something that had a document that offers some incite into the process.

Yay 100 pages... now the NSF can finally post the results.

Almost... there... 6 more pages!

I've heard from a few different sources that everyone that is "good enough" for the GRFP are placed into a pool; they then start assigning awards to the top people until they run out. Everyone else in that pool gets an HM. I don't know if it is 100% true, but if it is, everyone in that HM pool deserves the award. NSF just didn't have the funds for everyone. I'd be up for a staggered release, even though I doubt they will, just because it would be nice to get some real information other than "mid April."

I'm still failing to see a reason someone would turn the NDSEG down rather than accepting both.

Well if it isn't released today it will at least be historically late. Only 15 pages to go...

http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/activities/co ... GRFcov.pdf Actually has an amazing amount of juicy information. Defiantly worth looking at if you plan to apply again next year

11. Does the program portfolio have appropriate participation of underrepresented groups? Comments: The award-rate percentage is higher for underrepresented minorities than their percentage of participation in the program. However, the actual number and percentage of applications received from minority students does not reflect their representation among college-aged students. Numbers remain small, and growth limited, despite NSF and ASEE outreach efforts. The number of female applicants and recipients is appropriate; however, these numbers are skewed by the additional funding provided by the ENGR and CISE directorates. From: http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/activities/co ... GRFcov.pdf

We should also keep in mind that when a particular type (gender, race, location) is rare, that person has often had to triumph over adversity in order to get to where they are; this would in general make that person more "special" than someone who did not have to "try as hard." The women only awards are the only place that it is clearly (ie NSF is transparent) a benefit to be a woman applicant. Ethnic Diversity of 2008 Reviewed Applications* African American 3.4% Asian 10.2% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.2% Native American 0.6% Caucasian 72.3% Multi-Ethnic 1.9% Hispanic or Latino 5.9% No Response 9.4% *Includes all submitted applications including those deemed ineligible after submission. Surprisingly low percentages for some of the groups... nsf keeps quiet on the actual awarding percentages.

It isn't a HUGE factor. I cited a paper before that found that as one of their conclusions. There are also some women only awards in Computer Science & Women in Engineering. Race and Gender probably don't come into play until they are handing out the awards vs. HMs. At that point it defiantly does.

The 90% probably stems from the fact that there is basically a 10% acceptance rate for most disciplines. If all applicants were 100% equal then your odds would be 1 to 9. We of course know this not to be true; women, minorities, and people from less common geographical locations might have higher chances. We also know that some applications are disqualified; we can also safely assume that some of the applications will just be half baked and not real contenders. So the odds are most likely better than 1 to 9.

Shenanigans! Mathguy14 and curiousD are the same person!