Jump to content

Quant_Liz_Lemon

Members
  • Posts

    320
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Quant_Liz_Lemon got a reaction from Lovely13 in So, what's the deal with "Recruitment Weekends"?   
    Well, in my field there's are two types of interviews. Competitive and Recruitment.
     
    In competitive interviews, flights are not paid for and there are fewer spots than applicants.
     
    In recruitment interviews, flights are paid for and the acceptance is typically forthcoming as long as you don't reveal that you're crazy. This type of interview is more about wooing the applicant than determining who to admit.
  2. Upvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon reacted to littlemoondragon in NSF dishonesty dilemma?   
    TakeruK is correct! The NSF is a fellowship awarded to you as a person, not for a specific research project.
    The only thing NSF would be upset about is after you have been awarded is switching institutions (which does happen, but you have to explain) or switching fields.
  3. Upvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon reacted to TakeruK in NSF dishonesty dilemma?   
    I don't think you have a problem here at all. The NSF is a fellowship awarded to you as a person, not for a specific research project, even though you have to write essays about a specific research project. However, you will encounter later fellowship applications that are for a specific research project and you will see that they are very different.
    In my opinion, since you have not yet permanently put in place a plan to switch from Lab A to Lab B, it should be acceptable to write a NSF proposal for Lab A and then do the correct paperwork to switch to Lab B once you actually switch. It doesn't matter that you want to be in Lab B, the fact is that you are still in Lab A and your request to move to Lab B is not even approved yet!
    But if you are unhappy with this method, why not finalize the switch to Lab B now, before NSF proposals are due? Then, write your NSF application as a member of Lab B. 
    Note: I do not hold an NSF but I have the Canadian equivalent of the same award. From talking to my friends with NSF both the NSF and Canadian award is awarded to the student, not a project and awarded in a very general category, not a specific subfield. For example, my PhD NSF-equivalent was awarded for "Physics & Astronomy". I wrote a proposal before I started my PhD with brainstorming with a specific professor and I ended up not even going to that school and not even doing a project in that subfield. But the fellowship is awarded to me to do research in Physics & Astronomy. It is not awarded to my PI, it is not awarded to a specific project, and it is not awarded to me to perform a specific task. If the NSF is the same way, then what you are doing is perfectly fine and within the intention of the award. After all, the award is there to give the student/awardee the best advantage and resources possible to succeed as a PhD student in the field. If changing labs is what will help you succeed, then do it.
  4. Upvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon reacted to Dr. Old Bill in Props to Washington University in St. Louis   
    During last year's application cycle, I made a point of mentioning how wonderful the admin personnel at Washington University in St. Louis were to deal with. Sarah Hennessey in particular, who is/was the academic coordinator, was very friendly, efficient and quick to respond.
     
    The reason for this post, however, is that I just received an email from their DGS, kindly talking about the strengths of my application, and a couple of things I could do to improve it for the next cycle, if I didn't wind up getting in to any programs this time around. I'm very impressed. Perhaps it's just a quirk of my temperament, but motions like that -- personalized emails that didn't have to be sent -- are major selling points for me. It's one of the reasons why I'm very happy at UMD (they stress a congenial collegiate atmosphere), and is one of the reasons why, when I reapply to Ph.D. programs next year, I will include WashU in my plans once again.
     
     
  5. Upvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon reacted to Pitangus in NSF GRFP 2014-2015   
    This gets brought up multiple times every year, and I'm probably starting to sound like a broken record to those who have actually read through the threads, but yes, this is how it has been done according to the actual reviewers' guide (in 2008 and I would guess it hasn't changed much):
     
    A given subject panel distributed the applications so that each one went to two reviewers. The reviewers scored the application on a 1-50 scale for IM and BI (this scale corresponds to the P - E scores applicants see), and applications that scored below the 65th percentile after two reviewers were retired without being read by a third reviewer. The remaining proposals got a third reviewer, and were then ranked based on the average of the z-scores (standardized scores weighted based on all scores given by a reviewer, to help offset reviewer variability). The reviewers then deliberate to finalize the ranking.
     
    Applications were then sorted into four Quality Groups by their ranks:
    Applicants in Group 1 are all awarded fellowships
    Applicants in Group 2 "receive awards to the limit of funds available using criteria such as geographical region, discipline, and other factors" (so this is probably where diversity comes in); the rest receive HMs
    Applicants in Group 3 get HMs
    Applicants in Group 4 do not get awards or HMs (this group includes applications that were below the 65th percentile after two ratings and were retired before the third rating).
     
    So to conclude again: the scores applicants receive don't tell you much about how you were actually ranked, so it's pointless comparing how many Es and VGs you received compared to other applicants.
  6. Upvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon reacted to VentiHalfCaff in NSF GRFP 2014-2015   
    That's interesting. I hadn't heard before that "the research isn't as important as the person." If that's the case (and maybe it is), then that might partially explain why I was awarded with only 1 E and 5 VG's. If the focus is on the person or the person's potential rather than the details of the proposed research, then maybe that explains why a person might get "merely" above average assessments and still earn the award.
     
    Don't get me wrong: I don't think my proposal was shabby in any way, and I'm not saying I wasn't qualified, (and I know many other people were qualified but weren't awarded), but the fact that I was awarded my with mostly VG assessments has me very curious about the process. If it's said by most that "the research isn't as important as the person," maybe the 3 Peer Reviewers are sort of responsible for analyzing the proposal itself -- mainly the two statements, with less emphasis on "the person" (the rest of the application) -- and thought that my proposal was Very Good, but maybe the Program Officer is responsible for more thoroughly viewing the application in its entirety and thought the "person" or the "potential of the person" was award-worthy? I know ... it's a long shot and a total guess. I'm thinking out loud. But could this be the case?
     
     
    Wow. I have to disagree with you about a lot of the E's being taken out after considering diversity. That sounds to me like a very narrow view. It's as if you're implying that the non-diverse people naturally have the lion's share of E's, and that the diverse people naturally have lower non-E assessments ... but are awarded anyway. It's kind of like the old line, generally uttered by white people, of URM's, in the past, "He (or she) took my slot!" As if the "slot" belonged to the non-URM in the first place, or as if he was entitled to it from the beginning. Or as if the URM was not qualified by his or her own merits in the first place -- which non-URM's seemed to assume based solely on the URM's gender or the color of his/her skin. It is my bet that there are plenty of E's and VG's to go around -- from URM's and non-URM's, and that there were other possibly minor differences, besides diversity, that separated an awardee from an HM or deny. (And I'm speaking as a non-diverse, white male, non-URM, from a large state public who got only 1 E.)
     
    Sure, I know that NSF is focused on Broadening Diversity and promoting a team of NSF-funded scientists and engineers in STEM fields that mirrors our population. I understand that diversity IS part of the equation. But I am guessing that it's more of an occasional tie-breaker than a factor that routinely tosses exceptionally well-qualified non-URM's aside in favor of less-than-qualified URM's. That's too narrow for my thinking.
     
    Your other comment, geography rocks, is interesting. I hadn't heard that either. (I've really had very little exposure to the process.) Based on my knowledge of the college application process, and comparing this to that, I have an educated guess about this. The fact that a proposal is exceptionally well-written -- that fact alone -- may not be a threat to the applicant at all. Instead, the threat of having your proposal downgraded or denied for exceptional writing might arise only if the rest of your application doesn't support the fact that you're an exceptional writer. If your grades, test scores, academic honors, fellowships, scholarships, publications, presentations, and reference letters all support the fact that you can write exceptionally well, then there's no threat. But if your proposal is exceptionally well-written and the remainder of your application doesn't support the concept that you are an exceptional writer ... well, then, it kind of makes sense that there's a threat. (It did not occur to me that some people might turn in their advisor's work -- or that an advisor might "help" an applicant too much!) I do know that in the college application and scholarship process, admissions officers look for consistency across the entire application. If the entire application is consistent across the board in terms of stated strengths, the applicant is more likely to be selected for admission/scholarship. 
     
     
    I understand, braindump. We have some of the same wonders. You had mostly E's and no award, and I had mostly VG's and an award. It's confusing. Of course, there's the fact that different Peer Reviewers are going to rate differently. I suppose one applicant could have easily-impressed Peer Reviewers while another has hard-ass Peer Reviewers. And of course, there are bound to be other variables. But I do understand your frustration. You got great comments and tippy top assessments, and yet you weren't awarded. Disappointing.
     
    Anyway, it's been an interesting discussion. Lots of food for thought. Please keep those ideas coming. What have you heard about the process?
  7. Upvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon reacted to Chemil5000 in NSF GRFP 2014-2015   
    Very true. According to  http://www.cgsnet.org/us-graduate-schools-report-slight-growth-new-students-fall-2012about 461,000 graduate students enrolled in 2012. Assuming that enrollment rate is fairly constant through the years and knowing the following stats:
     
    - About 40% of grad students are "national" students and hence eligible. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/07/12/new-report-shows-dependence-us-graduate-programs-foreign-students
    - Around 50% of us are enrolled in STEM fields (see cgsnet link above)
    - 3 "generations" of us are applying (Entering students, 1st year and 2nd year) (let us use 2.5 considering there may be some fallout)
     
    We come to an estimate of 230,500 eligible students....
    of which only we 16,000 applied
     
    Hence from the total pool of eligible students only about 7% of us applied......
     
    ....all of a sudden 12% looks a lot better than a 0.8% chance no?
     
    =]
  8. Upvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon reacted to Monochrome Spring in NSF GRFP 2014-2015   
    Don't feed the trolls. You have the option to block all content from users who you find annoying.
     
    Remember that the outcome of the GRF does not determine your value as a scientist or as a person. It means that 3 people who most likely don't know you, who happen to be in a broadly related field, did not like your application as much as others. There is a lot of bias and luck, but it is also something to be proud of if you do get it. Just keep it positive.
  9. Upvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon reacted to nsf_weiner in NSF GRFP 2014-2015   
    Yeah. The odds are against you. There will be approximately 10,000 sad people the day they post. All the applications are high caliber. Just depends on luck. How lucky are you? Now ask yourself. Do you really think you are so special that you are better than many other good scientist applying? Don't be selfish and conceited. Every single person that applied has just a good a chance as you. My friend that won last year only filled out 1 page for the proposal and one page for the personal statement and somehow won. =/ Bet the judges just liked that he was simple and down to the point. O.o
  10. Upvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon reacted to MissData in Quant Student Q&A   
    Sorry for the delay. Here's my answers to your questions. Please feel free to follow up. I'd also like to add that my case is just one, and I know people who've come from many different kinds of backgrounds and gotten into great programs.
     
    Background:
    I did my undergrad at the University of Washington. I did two years at a community college, and then transfered there my junior year. I got into the honors program in the psychology department, which pairs you with a faculty and you work in their lab for two years and do your own independent research project. I worked with a social faculty member there and did my thesis on goal congruity theory and it's applications in increasing women's participation in science, technology, engineering, and math. I completed a BS in psychology and minored in math. After I graduated I spent a year as the lab manager of the social lab that I worked in while I was an undergrad and collaborated on a few social and one quant project. I made a point to present posters at conferences like SPSP, and some undergraduate conferences.
     
    GRE/GPA Scores:
    Quant: 162
    Verbal: 169
    Writing: 5
    GPA: 3.78
     
    Deciding:
    Going in, Ohio State and UCLA were my top two schools. There were multiple people at the schools that I was interested in working with and they are well regarded programs. The May before I interviewed, I gave a talk at UCLA and made a point to contact the professor I wanted to work with at UCLA and asked if we could meet. We met and got along great. I really like her approach to mentorship, and she has a good track record and her work is really interesting to me. The other two schools UNC and UBC were easy for me to say no to. The adviser at UBC was AMAZING, but their funding packages were not livable in Vancouver. All of their students were living with family in the area, which was not something I could do. UNC, though the program is amazing, paired me with an adviser I was not interested in working with, and I don't agree with their method of when you TA versus RA during your time there. I think if they had paired me with a different adviser I would have seriously considered it. The students there obviously loved it, and a lot of the faculty there are great and doing very well. Not to mention Chapel Hill is a really low cost of living but fun area.
    In the end UCLA versus OSU came down to the adviser. I had applied for the NSFGRF (which I highly recommend everyone look into). When I didn't get it, I got a really short email from the prof at UCLA essentially saying "Too bad." But, my adviser at OSU sent me a long email noting how my experience this year would set me up well for trying again next year. He was so supportive when I felt so defeated, I knew that was how I wanted my relationship with my adviser to be. I am a person who needs support when I need it and distance most of the rest of the time. My adviser does that very well, and it made everything very easy. Additionally (and this wasn't THE deciding factor but I think it's important) my adviser at OSU nominated me for an incredibly competitive fellowship that gave me a much bigger stipend than the usual and a lot of reduced TA time, whereas the prof at UCLA nominated me for a Diversity Fellowship that was not as competitive and there were other options for what she could have nominated me for. It made me feel like my adviser at OSU had a lot of faith in me, whereas maybe not so much at UCLA. In the end I'm very happy with my decision, I don't feel like I burned any bridges, and I hope I get a chance to work at those other schools in the future. It's a tricky deicision and I highly recommend sitting on it for as long as you can. There is a date that you must respond by, but don't let anyone pressure you to answer before then.
     
    Reaching Out:
    Like I said above, I actually met with one of the professors before I applied. It was mostly luck that I was giving a talk at that school, but I definitely think that set me above and beyond. I emailed Dr. Hayes before applying, and he has since noted that he really only seriously considers the students who emailed him before. I also emailed my POI at UBC just to see if he was taking students. I didn't email UNC because I wasn't very invested in going there, but my mentality about it was that if I got in there it would make the offers more competitive from other schools. I emailed ASU, my POI said he was not taking students, but that the program as a whole was taking students (they didn't actually), so I wasn't particularly hopeful.
    My general recommendation is to contact them before hand. Ask if they are taking students. Ask what papers they have out are most representative of their current pursuits. Make sure you're very polite, but also remember that they are looking for curious minds, so make sure to ask more than surface questions. You can always ask about details of the program that aren't available online. I asked most of my POIs if the programs were supportive of students pursuing a Masters of Statistics/Applied Statistics/Biostatistics because that was something I was interested in doing.
     
    Hope this helps!
  11. Upvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon got a reaction from VulpesZerda in What to do with a Psychology degree?   
    What about health psychology?
  12. Upvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon got a reaction from ed_psy in School Psychology MS.Ed or Phd   
    You should definitely take your gres again. 5% and 25% percentile are really concerning to any phd program.
  13. Upvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon reacted to QASP in MD (Psychiatry) or PhD (Social Psychology)?   
    Psychology as a field encompasses a huge number of perspectives, and you can find many people who have radically different philosophical beliefs within it. The best way to impact something you don't like about a field is to get in it first, and then change it; criticism from the outside is rarely impactful. You may want to look into a clinical-community psychology program, it bridges a lot of your stated interests. An MD/PhD also seems like a reasonable approach that would allow you to get into research far earlier in your career and make it the heart of what you do.
  14. Upvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon reacted to loginofpscl in NDSEG 2013-2014   
    http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12062/nsf12062.jsp
     
    I received a GRFP Fellowship Offer and currently have a Federal Fellowship (DOE, EPA, etc.); may I accept the GRFP Fellowship?
    No. Starting with the 2011 Fellows forward, GRFP Fellowships cannot be concurrently accepted or combined with another US Government Federal Fellowship, irrespective of the Fellow's Status.
    I received a GRFP Fellowship Offer and currently have a Federal Fellowship (DOE, EPA, etc.); what are my options?
    Starting with the 2011 Fellows forward, GRFP Fellowships cannot be concurrently accepted or combined with another US Government Federal Fellowship, irrespective of the Fellow's Status. You must decline the GRFP Fellowship Offer or terminate your current Federal Fellowship prior to accepting the GRFP Fellowship.
  15. Upvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon reacted to nazema in NDSEG 2013-2014   
    National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship Hello everyone,

    Please note that the award process has already begun! However, we are still waiting on the list of remaining awarded applicants from the Department of Defense. Once we have this information, we will be sure to let all applicants know of the final decisions via e-mail.

    We greatly appreciate all of your patience and cooperation on this matter! Please don't hesitate to contact us via email at ndseg@asee.org or telephone at 202-649-3831.

    Have a great day,

    The NDSEG Program Team


    On the NDSEG Facebook page yesterday so it seems we could be waiting for who knows how long
  16. Upvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon reacted to StrandBeast in NDSEG 2013-2014   
    Having gone through this last year as well, I don't think this is correct at all.  (That's not to say the situation is any better than a waitlist.)
     
    We know there is an initial screening stage done by NDSEG to weed out candidates before the DOD sees the applications.  I think this stage is mostly formulaic and is the easy stage to make it through.  Then it gets to the DOD where they take a much closer look at each candidates.  This stage is not formulaic and is more of a holistic process.  This is the tough stage.  
     
    The most likely scenario I have heard is that the "maybe" email means you have made it past the first stage into the hands of the DOD.  The fact that some acceptances have gone out means that one or more branches have gotten back to NDSEG with their selections.  In other words, it's not a waitlist and NDSEG is truly waiting to hear back from the DOD. 
     
    But this is not an optimistic scenario.  I'm guessing the first stage filter doesn't weed out that many applicants.  Assume half.  If you knew you made it past the first stage filter and no DOD branches had gotten back with acceptances then the chance of award given this information would be double the normal NDSEG rate (10%), so 20%.  In other words, there are ~1000 applicants competing for 200 spots.  Now assume a branch of DOD has gotten back with their choices and they took up 200/3 ~= 66 spots.  Then we have (1000-66) candidates competing for 200-66 spots so that puts us at a 15% chance of success.  If on the other hand, 2 branches have gotten back then we're looking at (1000-133) candidates competing for 200-133 spots or a 8% chance of success.
     
    Obviously these numbers are rough, but they give an order of magnitude idea of what this "maybe" email means for your chances and it's not something to get your hopes up about.  The fact that only one person reported receiving a fellowship from the legions of maybes list last year corroborates these ballpark numbers
  17. Upvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon reacted to PrettyLittleProtist in NDSEG 2013-2014   
    I got that email as well.
     
    FWIW, one of my friends was out and out rejected for the NDSEG.
  18. Upvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon reacted to sandyo in NDSEG 2013-2014   
    Just got a text from a friend at UC Berkeley that award notices have gone out in Psychology & Behavioral Sciences. Pretty safe to assume that award notices have gone out to all the fields?
  19. Downvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon reacted to olorwen in NDSEG 2013-2014   
    I just got the award! I'm in Mechanical Engineering, and I'm another one of those people who got both the NSF GRFP and the NDSEG. I think I'll likely be accepting the NSF (the money is slightly better and I'm interested in NSF GROW), so hopefully I'll free up an NDSEG spot for someone else!
  20. Upvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon reacted to loginofpscl in NDSEG 2013-2014   
    From the NSF solicitation: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13584/nsf13584.htm
     
     
    Since the award period for the NSF is five years (and three years for actual tenure), this means you cannot accept both.
     
    On to differences: you have to accept the NDSEG immediately, which is sort of less flexible than the ability to put the GRFP on reserve for up to two years. Any other differences besides the ones listed?
  21. Upvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon reacted to tschlich in NDSEG 2013-2014   
    I'm like 95% sure you can't accept both.
  22. Upvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon reacted to waddles in NDSEG 2013-2014   
    Did anyone else not get this email? I checked that my app was submitted and my contact info was correct....
  23. Upvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon reacted to roboticsapplicant in NSF GRFP 2013-14   
    Watch this just be a routine maintenance thing, no awards posted.
  24. Downvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon reacted to kap09c in NSF GRFP 2013-14   
    If you're "downvoting" me, you are no fun 
  25. Downvote
    Quant_Liz_Lemon reacted to kap09c in NSF GRFP 2013-14   
    I AM HERE TO CONFIRM THAT THE RESULTS ARE INFACT BEING POSTED TONIGHT. USER LOGINS AND EMAILS HAVE BEEN DELETED FROM THE GRFP SITE, SIMILAR TO PREVIOUS YEARS. ALSO OTHER PARTS OF FASTLANE ARE FUNCTIONAL, JUST NOT THE GRFP AREA. I WILL SEE ALL OF YOU BRAVE SOULS AT 2AM!!!!!!!!! BEST OF LUCK!!!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use