NSF Fellowships

[Guest guest]

The standing must be based on more than just the subjective rankings. I got:

Excellent / Very Good

Very Good / Very Good

Very Good / Less Good

And I was awarded the fellowship (top 6%).

I don't understand at all. I got Very Good/Good, Very Good/Very Good, and Excellent/Excellent. I have outstanding GRE scores (perfect in Q and AWA, 99th percentile in V) and a 3.9 GPA. Yet I landed in the bottom 63% (no HM or anything). How is this possible?

[Guest guest]

GT to Stanny: I'd imagine the NSF prioritizes which areas it funds more heavily. They already do this in terms of grant money available to professors. What field are you in? For instance, last year there were 8 awards in my area (computer science, theoretical foundations). This year there were only 3. Two excellent/excellent's and a very good/good got me an honorable mention. As far as grades, etc., I'd imagine that there are a significant number of applicants with perfect or near-perfect gpas, so that most likely isn't too huge of a factor. Two friends of mine who won awards didn't even submit GRE scores, so those also are probably not weighted too heavily. I'd imagine undergraduate research is weighted heavily though -- all three of my reviewers mentioned my publications in my "intellectual merits" section.

[Guest GT to Stanny]

I don't understand at all. I got Very Good/Good, Very Good/Very Good, and Excellent/Excellent. I have outstanding GRE scores (perfect in Q and AWA, 99th percentile in V) and a 3.9 GPA. Yet I landed in the bottom 63% (no HM or anything). How is this possible?

Not sure, that sounds pretty fishy...

I got to Georgia Tech, which has solid rankings for mechanical engineering (my discipline), does your school rank highly or is it an obscure one? I have a 3.94 GPA (solid) and my GRE was Q 770, V 530 (not stellar), but I also have a lot of research experience.

I would be tempted to look into it further if I was in your position. Probably won't get anything accomplished, but your numbers just don't seem to line up.

[Guest GT to Stanny]

GT to Stanny: I'd imagine the NSF prioritizes which areas it funds more heavily. They already do this in terms of grant money available to professors. What field are you in? For instance, last year there were 8 awards in my area (computer science, theoretical foundations). This year there were only 3. Two excellent/excellent's and a very good/good got me an honorable mention. As far as grades, etc., I'd imagine that there are a significant number of applicants with perfect or near-perfect gpas, so that most likely isn't too huge of a factor. Two friends of mine who won awards didn't even submit GRE scores, so those also are probably not weighted too heavily. I'd imagine undergraduate research is weighted heavily though -- all three of my reviewers mentioned my publications in my "intellectual merits" section.

I'd say that all makes sense. Mechanical Engineering is probably one of the larger fields funded by the NSF. If research is weighted heavily then I would be at the top of the pile, since that is by far my strong point. I think we have shown that the GRE scores are of minimal importance (esp since some winners didn't submit them), which I am happy to see. I have very little faith in SAT, ACT, GRE, etc.

[Guest guest]

if you don't submit GRE scores, is it held against you?

[Guest guest]

Is that really true? Did you see that written somewhere? I did not receive HM or the award, but I got three reviews. Three quite positive reviews, actually. It almost makes me wonder if there was a mistake.

That was my impression from applying last year and everyone else I knew who applied last year. I haven't talked to enough people from this year to know whether they did it the same way.

If I were you, I'd think it was a mistake not to get an HM. BUT, like I said they must have done it differently this year.

[Guest guest]

To those who did well in the broader impacts area - did you acutally *do* something in your academic career that fell under that category or did you just waffle about it

Yes, I did. My research itself rarely had broader impacts, but I promoted diversity in the field, helped out with administrative things, taught people, etc. I also did lots of leadery things not in my field and briefly mentioned them in the essay. I was really proud of my broader impacts...honestly, though, I think most people make this part up.

[Guest guest]

regarding people's inconsistent rankings: (like the person who got a "less good" but still received the award)

I noticed a link to a "sample review sheet" on the website in the electronic letter that greets you with your rating sheets. When I looked at this sample review sheet, it was just like the ones we got except with a part on the bottom that was clipped from the sheets they gave to us. In this part, there was a "rating" box. I think they give you an actual number here. So, the "good/very good/excellent" crap is...crap. There are of course other considerations like making sure they fund based a bit on discipline, geography, etc, but I think the only way to explain the huge inconsistency in people's verbal ratings is the use of that box we can't see.

[Guest guest]

ROFL...

One reviewer commented in my broader impacts section:

"Although the applicant has shown good skill in preparing her proposal, based on other evidence, I don't think she will be a leader in the field compared to others applying for GRF."

Whatever...I'll show them...there is more to being a leader in the field than winning a stupid fellowship competition!

Now...if he only knew that the "excellent problem to tackle" that I outlined in my research proposal was ALL my idea!

ophiolite -- I don't think they meant "leader in the field" as in "top researcher in the field" as this was written in your broader impacts section. I think the reviewer meant leader in the typical sense of advising, guiding, and helping others. My reviewers mentioned leadership in my broader impacts because I was a major leader on my campus as an undergraduate. Am I going to be a top researcher in my field? Maybe not, but I'll be a good leader at the university where I work.

Either way, I hope you're very proud of your outstanding proposal and good luck with your graduate studies!

[Guest Bitter]

I really don't understand my results. I got my reviews back today and they were

Excellent/Excellent

Excellent/Excellent

Excellent/Very Good

Yet I only got an HM. What is this crap? Like one of the previous posters, I am also in the Computer Science - Theoretical Foundations field. In 2004, there were 12 awards for CS theory. In 2005, there were 8. This year, there were 3. Yet fields like AI consistently receive ~20 awards, and this year HCI got 7 (more than double the amount that theory got!)

What gives?

[Guest Mr Guest]

They must take other factors into account, I got:

E/E

VG/VG

VG/G

one pub, one on the way

3.65 GPA

790 M

750 V

And I got HM. Others with those ratings got the award, though perhaps not in physics. I heard they take geography into account but is it by school attended or place of birth? I don't have a lot of competition here in Florida but I was born in NYC. Also, I though my broader impacts were solid but they turned out to be my weak point. I did a lot of work reading through the educational literature and citing papers that support my plan for reaching disadvantaged students. One reviewer even wrote "He has no teaching experience but an interesting teaching philosophy." I've been tutoring upper level chemistry since my first year in college and I teach chemistry and physics for the Princeton Review! Did they not even read my application? I put a lot of work into my research proposal but I only started learning about the area last summer, the comments on that were positive though.

[Guest guest]

They must take other factors into account, I got:

E/E

VG/VG

VG/G

one pub, one on the way

3.65 GPA

790 M

750 V

And I got HM. Others with those ratings got the award, though perhaps not in physics. I heard they take geography into account but is it by school attended or place of birth? I don't have a lot of competition here in Florida but I was born in NYC. Also, I though my broader impacts were solid but they turned out to be my weak point. I did a lot of work reading through the educational literature and citing papers that support my plan for reaching disadvantaged students. One reviewer even wrote "He has no teaching experience but an interesting teaching philosophy." I've been tutoring upper level chemistry since my first year in college and I teach chemistry and physics for the Princeton Review! Did they not even read my application? I put a lot of work into my research proposal but I only started learning about the area last summer, the comments on that were positive though.

somebody else in this thread said earlier that geography is based on where you went to high school.

[Guest guest]

I really don't understand my results. I got my reviews back today and they were

Excellent/Excellent

Excellent/Excellent

Excellent/Very Good

Yet I only got an HM. What is this crap? Like one of the previous posters, I am also in the Computer Science - Theoretical Foundations field. In 2004, there were 12 awards for CS theory. In 2005, there were 8. This year, there were 3. Yet fields like AI consistently receive ~20 awards, and this year HCI got 7 (more than double the amount that theory got!)

What gives?

That definitely does suck. I'm sorry that happened to you. My ratings were slightly worse (E/E, E/E, VG/VG) and I won the award.

My guess is:

1) they use that number at the bottom of the sheet that we don't actually see. So one person might give a "good" and assign it at very high number, and another might give that person an "excellent" and give it the same pretty high number. I saw someone's rating from a previous year, before they used this system, and I noticed that person get the equivalent of G/VG for most ratings, yet a great number at the bottom from one reviewer, and E/VG ratings from a different reviewer who gave her a worse number. Now they don't even show us the numbers.

2) geography, and it would be based on where you grew up (hence the high school question), not where you go to school now. So NYC is a problem for you. (But I'm from around there, too, so this can't totally explain it.)

3) field...but I'd be surprised if they mess with the sub-categories that much. I do know, though, that different major categories will have different levels of competitiveness in them.

[Guest Bitter]

That definitely does suck. I'm sorry that happened to you. My ratings were slightly worse (E/E, E/E, VG/VG) and I won the award.

My guess is:

1) they use that number at the bottom of the sheet that we don't actually see. So one person might give a "good" and assign it at very high number, and another might give that person an "excellent" and give it the same pretty high number. I saw someone's rating from a previous year, before they used this system, and I noticed that person get the equivalent of G/VG for most ratings, yet a great number at the bottom from one reviewer, and E/VG ratings from a different reviewer who gave her a worse number. Now they don't even show us the numbers.

2) geography, and it would be based on where you grew up (hence the high school question), not where you go to school now. So NYC is a problem for you. (But I'm from around there, too, so this can't totally explain it.)

3) field...but I'd be surprised if they mess with the sub-categories that much. I do know, though, that different major categories will have different levels of competitiveness in them.

1) That may be the case. Do they release the details of how they rank applications?

2) I'm actually from the San Francisco Bay Area, so maybe that's a problem as well. Seems kind of odd that they would take geography into account, though. It seems like an utterly useless and political way of doing things.

3) I'm not sure. It's not like there was a sharp decrease in the number of CS theory applicants (the number of CS theory HMs given has remained fairly constant over the years). In addition, a friend of mine in CS (different subfield) had rankings of E/E, E/VG, E/VG (so slightly worse than mine), yet still got the award. He was even in the same percentile range (79-93) as me. I don't know for sure, but I'm fairly convinced that they have quotas for subfields.

[Guest same guest as before]

1) That may be the case. Do they release the details of how they rank applications?

2) I'm actually from the San Francisco Bay Area, so maybe that's a problem as well. Seems kind of odd that they would take geography into account, though. It seems like an utterly useless and political way of doing things.

3) I'm not sure. It's not like there was a sharp decrease in the number of CS theory applicants (the number of CS theory HMs given has remained fairly constant over the years). In addition, a friend of mine in CS (different subfield) had rankings of E/E, E/VG, E/VG (so slightly worse than mine), yet still got the award. He was even in the same percentile range (79-93) as me. I don't know for sure, but I'm fairly convinced that they have quotas for subfields.

1) they do not release these details, but they do say "in accordance with blah blah act, we reserve the right to use geography and field to choose between applicants with the same qualification" or something. I did see that somewhere.

2) SF bay area is a bad place to be from. This is probably what made you different from your friend. Speaking of which, from posts I've seen here, it looks like there are two levels of HM (63-79 and 79-93) and two levels of award (79-93 and 93-100). Clearly, you and your friend were differentiated due to geography or field.

3) I'm pretty sure they have quotas or rough quotas for fields, partially based on funding. As for sub-fiends, I'd still be surprised...at least in my area you can do "other" as a subfield, so what would that mean for your app? Also, I applied under two different subfields this year and last but I had the same number by my committee name, indicating I was reviewed by the same type of people both years. I still doubt the subfields differentiate.

Where is your friend from originally? What did he put down for his high school? That could be your difference. Once again, I'm extremely sorry you got so close. Do apply next year unless this is your 2nd year of graduate school, and if it is, just keep up your good work in general. You will be rewarded for it eventually.

[Guest guest]

1) they do not release these details, but they do say "in accordance with blah blah act, we reserve the right to use geography and field to choose between applicants with the same qualification" or something. I did see that somewhere.

2) SF bay area is a bad place to be from. This is probably what made you different from your friend. Speaking of which, from posts I've seen here, it looks like there are two levels of HM (63-79 and 79-93) and two levels of award (79-93 and 93-100). Clearly, you and your friend were differentiated due to geography or field.

3) I'm pretty sure they have quotas or rough quotas for fields, partially based on funding. As for sub-fiends, I'd still be surprised...at least in my area you can do "other" as a subfield, so what would that mean for your app? Also, I applied under two different subfields this year and last but I had the same number by my committee name, indicating I was reviewed by the same type of people both years. I still doubt the subfields differentiate.

Where is your friend from originally? What did he put down for his high school? That could be your difference. Once again, I'm extremely sorry you got so close. Do apply next year unless this is your 2nd year of graduate school, and if it is, just keep up your good work in general. You will be rewarded for it eventually.

It wouldn't surprise me if they did look at subfield. There has been somewhat of an anti-theory trend in funding agencies as of late. Take a look at http://theorymatters.org/ (see the FAQ). The steady drop in nsf awards given to cs theorists over the last 2 years seems to also fit in with this trend (I mean, just two years ago there were 4x as many awards to theorists...?).

[Guest guest]

for the record, two years does not constitute an annual "trend"

[Guest guest]

for the record, two years does not constitute an annual "trend"

I meant 3 years' worth of awards: 2004, 2005, and 2006. The drop has not been slight either.

[Guest guest]

for the record, two years does not constitute an annual "trend"

And the trend was referring to funding for theory in general, not the nsf grfp.

[Guest GT to Stanny]

Theory! Who needs it anyway?

I know I sure don't (at least not in theory)

[Guest Bitter]

1) they do not release these details, but they do say "in accordance with blah blah act, we reserve the right to use geography and field to choose between applicants with the same qualification" or something. I did see that somewhere.

2) SF bay area is a bad place to be from. This is probably what made you different from your friend. Speaking of which, from posts I've seen here, it looks like there are two levels of HM (63-79 and 79-93) and two levels of award (79-93 and 93-100). Clearly, you and your friend were differentiated due to geography or field.

3) I'm pretty sure they have quotas or rough quotas for fields, partially based on funding. As for sub-fiends, I'd still be surprised...at least in my area you can do "other" as a subfield, so what would that mean for your app? Also, I applied under two different subfields this year and last but I had the same number by my committee name, indicating I was reviewed by the same type of people both years. I still doubt the subfields differentiate.

Where is your friend from originally? What did he put down for his high school? That could be your difference. Once again, I'm extremely sorry you got so close. Do apply next year unless this is your 2nd year of graduate school, and if it is, just keep up your good work in general. You will be rewarded for it eventually.

My friend is from the SF bay area as well, which is what makes it so baffling. Anyway, thanks for your input!

[Guest guest]

are you guys planning on applying again this fall? when does fastlane open up for next year's round of apps?

[Guest bruno]

I just found this thread, so I may be a little late to get in on the conversation.

I won one of the Awards. Based on some of the other postings, I have no idea how I got it.

Good, but not great, GREs. Good, but not great, GPA. Good, but not great, public university.

Must have been the proposal.

Going to keep the Award, though.

[Guest curious about nsf]

For those who won the award, could you tell us a bit about your community service and other volunteer activities that could have earned you good marks under Broader Impacts? Was there something about your proposals that earned you good marks in this section?

thanks

[Guest broader impacts]

For those who won the award, could you tell us a bit about your community service and other volunteer activities that could have earned you good marks under Broader Impacts? Was there something about your proposals that earned you good marks in this section?

thanks

I won one of the awards this year.

My proposal made a weak attempt at broader impacts, but the nature of my research is that there isn't that much broader impact to it, unfortunately. But regardless, you need to make an attempt in the proposal no matter how good your broader impacts are elsewhere.

In terms of the rest of my BI, in the "personal statement" essay I included my history in this area, and according to the comments they really loved what I had done:

1) one research project that benefitted children living below the poverty line while also improving their math/science skills. (So this combined research and education, improved diversity in math/science, and benefitted society.) I don't do any research like this now, but the prior experience of it helped.

2) taught science to young girls -- integrated research and education (due to the nature of the program), and increased diversity in math/science

3) academic leadership and involvement in administrative aspects of the undergraduate education

4) also extensive non-science, non-academic leadership at my undergraduate institution, including an award. (but I didn't talk about the non-academic leadership as much because scientists don't really want to hear it, even though it's where I did the most of my leading.)

Additionally, I talked about the present/future at my graduate school (even though I had only just started, obviously) by mentioning an undergraduate research program I wanted to become involved in, and by mentioning I had already joined an administrative committee.

If they structure the essays the same way next year where they make the personal statement a place to talk about broader impact stuff as well as your background/what led you to your interests in math and science, make sure you actually talk about broader impacts in the essay! If you don't, you're pretty much toast.

The good news for you is that most of the people who I know who have won the award have done way less broader impacts stuff than I have, so don't think you need all of that experience in order to win. However, in my case I'm sure it's what put me over the top. Comparing to people I know who applied for the NSF in various years, my academic/intellectual credentials are closer to those who won honorable mentions than they are to those who won the full out award.