zetetic

I did not get any award last year, but I was awarded one this year. The most general piece of advice I can give you is to look at the reviews that are coming your way and read into them as much as possible. The reviews are very general, but identify the areas in which your essays are weak-- and to be sure, the essays are the most important part of this application (and the personal statement is smack dab at the top). My grades went up a bit in my last year of undergrad, so that may have helped-- but it wasn't a significant rise. 2/3 of my letters were from graduate professors, which knew me for a much shorter time than undergrad professors; my research adviser back in Undergrad still wrote me what I imagine is a letter worth a hundred times its weight in gold (I definitely haven't deserved much of what I've gotten on my grades alone). Keep that connection up, if you have one. I did have a conference paper published this time around as well, which I hear has helped people in the past. The NSF has a list of topics that they really care about; I'll look for that list and post it here if I can find it. It was very clear after I drafted my personal statement again (I COMPLETELY rewrote it based on comments, which were basically just "doesn't show enough attention to diversity" and "broader impacts could be stronger" even though I got a "very good" in broader impacts) whether I met what the NSF was looking for or not. Of course, write what you mean and accurately depict what you have done, but spend time highlighting the things that NSF also values: education, outreach, uniqueness of character. Re-write your essay until you think you've honestly and fully gleaned what you can from your life experiences to display this. And, after all is said and done, there's some element of "luck" in this-- so cross your fingers, say a little prayer, caress a rabbit's foot or whatever it is that you believe in as you send it off. I'd be happy to communicate with you more and give general opinions if you'd like them, but it would help to wait until you get your review sheets. I'm sorry about this year, but you always have another shot!

Just look at those institutions' gross awards on the graduate level, too-- the facts are clear, the students going to those institutions either for undergrad or grad win more awards. However, being one of the 44 that got the award after getting a BS at Berkeley (now at Cornell for PhD), I feel like at least Berkeley specifically had programs to try to foster getting the NSF fellowship, including connecting those that previously won an award with applicants, having boards of reviewers try and give the applicant a realistic view of how the application would be judged, etc. Cornell, on the other hand, has nothing of the sort (at least that was widely advertised). They have panels that meet and give advice periodically, but it wasn't as broad in my opinion. Also, I feel that Berkeley from the beginning attempts to install a "broader impacts" emphasis from day 1. I don't mean to say other schools don't, I really have no idea about that-- but I know Berkeley really gave that perspective to me in a way that I heavily relied on while writing my personal statement for the NSF GRF. http://grad.berkeley.edu/publications/egrad/0209.shtml Ouch.

I got the fellowship; would be willing to help people revise their app as necessary for the next round if they like. I am in mechanical engineering and applied mathematics, if that helps anyone.

I would love to believe you. And there's a very easy way to make me believe: send a screenshot of the page you get after you click the "Accept fellowship" link.

Since I don't have an NSF GRF, I can't say where I normally would get their emails. However, I know whenever I do get e-mails from the NSF GRFP system, I get it from "grfp@nsf.gov", which routes through ursa.nsf.gov (Postfix) to kava.nsf.gov (a gateway). It would really be something if this is a targeted phishing attack...

crh @ hal ~ $ whois cmail1.com Whois Server Version 2.0 Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information. Domain Name: CMAIL1.COM Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC. Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com Name Server: NS0.DNSMADEEASY.COM Name Server: NS1.DNSMADEEASY.COM Status: clientDeleteProhibited Status: clientRenewProhibited Status: clientTransferProhibited Status: clientUpdateProhibited Updated Date: 06-may-2007 Creation Date: 18-jul-2005 Expiration Date: 18-jul-2016 >>> Last update of whois database: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 22:09:15 EDT <<< [...] Registrant: Creastesend.com Suite 404 3-5 Stapleton Ave Sutherland, New South Wales 2232 Australia Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: CMAIL1.COM Created on: 18-Jul-05 Expires on: 18-Jul-16 Last Updated on: 06-May-07 Administrative Contact: Richardson, Ben info@createsend.com Creastesend.com Suite 404 3-5 Stapleton Ave Sutherland, New South Wales 2232 Australia 295215312 Fax -- Technical Contact: Richardson, Ben info@createsend.com Creastesend.com Suite 404 3-5 Stapleton Ave Sutherland, New South Wales 2232 Australia 295215312 Fax -- Domain servers in listed order: NS0.DNSMADEEASY.COM NS1.DNSMADEEASY.COM Why would NSF GRFP use a domain name that's registered in Australia for its mailing lists?

I totally agree, however I was just asked to change my password (just now as I logged in, after I had read all of the above posts on this subject) as well and I know I changed it at the beginning of this application period (October or so). I don't think this means that we got the GRF, but it may mean that they recently changed something in their own systems, e.g. possibly reset a certain timer and people that hadn't changed their passwords prior to a certain date had to change it again. Such an action could have been caused on accident (doubtful) or due to a request by whatever network and information security team Fastlane has overseeing its operations (according to standard IT practice; I worked in IT security for three years so this is just from my experience). I logged in earlier this morning (~8am) and was not asked to do this at that time.

I laugh when I think of the number of folks that created accounts just for this thread. I saw another one earlier-- "nsfhopeful" I believe his handle was. Your handle is "nobudget," which is quite particular to your post. It would be grand if the two of you climb the ranks to gradcafe forum czars (or "baristas," as they are affectionately titled here), but grander if someday you had to explain the story behind your handles.

http://bash.org/?400459 Been waiting for you to reply for awhile, sir buttsssssss. (note: you may have posted recently, but despite my obsession over checking this forum thread as of late, I can't say I've been able/wanted to/had the stomach to stay up with all of the most recent postings...)

What an amazing idea. This thread has definitely brought me some great entertainment over the past week and a half. It might be advisable to send some of our favorite posts (and posters) their way to make the job easier. I can think of a few right now... namely, anything posted by the users Friar.Tuck and blackbeard, and the apparent cult following the two have. Of course the comics that have been posted. The insulting of the one guy who called in and talked with a call center manager (I think clarifying a lot in the way of the uselessness of calling into a call center-- and for that reason, I salute him). The veteran who started the NSF GRFP topic last year coming in this year and trying to make us all sane. The ensuing collapse into persistent chaos that resulted (hey, I'm a dynamicist, I had to say it). And, of course, the fact that one guy actually got to his review sheets before they should have been posted. Nice one, mathguy14. Please tell me this will be held over an IRC channel on some obscure departmental server somewhere...

I can't believe that they would make that error in an e-mail that they send to all of their selected award recipients. You truly believe that we live in a conniving, harsh world, don't you? At least you have an award in your pocket right now... congratulations.

I haven't read the text of the stimulus bill. However, in general, bureaucratic budgeting works like this: if there's an infusion of money into a general fund, it must be applied to department/directorate budgets and from there delegated down until it reaches a line item. If that line item is one that demands long-term costs, then it depends on how the funds are usually structured. Either the entire expenditure can be paid upfront and the money that will be used to pay for it will be moved from the budget to a trust of sorts (the safe way), or it will be committing future budgets to allocate that money as it comes in the future (risky, because you could have a budget shortfall but your discretionary spending amount is low so you have to cut anything you can, e.g. personnel overhead). If the bill explicitly forbade the former practice, then I think it would mean no money from the stimulus bill could be spent on supporting NSF fellowships, or most other unsolicited grants, for that matter; all grants are spent over a certain period of time that would probably overrun the deadline for spending the stimulus bill money.

That's not how bureaucratic spending works. As long as it's budgeted for a purpose now and spent from the general fund, independent of how its spent, it is considered 'appropriated.'

I served an addendum to my post immediately prior to your question: If only I was a minute faster... I am not sure about intra-agency transfers; if the DOJ wanted to see your grades after you sent them to the NSF, I believe they would be allowed to do that. However, seeing as the ASEE is a private institution, they would not be permitted to forward along your transcripts according to FERPA.

Nope, but seeing as that would be violating the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), I doubt that's the case. You only grant the institution to which you're sending your transcripts the right to view the transcripts at the time they're sent, you are not giving them the right to request transcripts at a later date and have that request filled without your approval. Once the institution has your transcripts, they are not permitted to forward them on to others (without a subpoena). This authority is non-delegable once you are over age 18 or attending an institution that is above the high school level (http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html), so your department or adviser could not have made that decision for you either. More likely there was a clerical error and your grades were we-uploaded by the NSF GRFP staff.