SSHRC Postdoc 2023-2024

[idkdisplayname]

There is maybe still hope for today...when I logged in to my Extranet, it showed that they announced my Vanier results at 3:27pm on May 1st (results supposed to be posted in April lol). The wait is absolute torture and I am not getting any work done either! 

[HeatherCT]

Hi everyone! Agreed with all, this is horrible! This is my second year applying. Last year, they sent an email on Feb 25th I think to say that results would come the week of Feb. 28th (which was a Monday). They came on March 3rd. Since we haven't received an email yet saying the results will come outside of February, I'm holding out hope it'll be today! I emailed yesterday to confirm the results would be posted online and not sent through the mail (I also panicked when I re-read the confirmation of receipt email). I heard back, and they said results would be on Extranet and they were "aiming for" the end of February. We'll get an email with instructions on how to access the results once they're available.

Also (and sorry to prolong obsessive refreshing...) my results email didn't come until almost 9:00 p.m. EST last year. I wasn't the only one, either. They started sending the emails towards the end of the business day and it apparently took hours to get through them.

Wishing you all very good luck!

Edited February 28, 2023 by HeatherCT

[fmlfmlfml]

Well, I'm betting we won't hear until Friday... 😂😭

[slc4a3]

just got the email!!

[HeyJelko]

Does anyone know why I might be getting an error trying to login to extranet? 

[fmlfmlfml]

5 minutes ago, HeyJelko said:

Does anyone know why I might be getting an error trying to login to extranet? 

I got that when I tried logging in on mobile, but it worked on my browser!

[fmlfmlfml]

I was unfortunately not funded this year (living up to my username lol) - ranked 35/64 with a score of 13.72 in Committee 4. The last funded application in my committee was 14.93/18, with 18/64 applications being funded overall.

I hope some of you folks were successful! I'm pulling for you! 

[Smitten Pears]

37 minutes ago, HeyJelko said:

Does anyone know why I might be getting an error trying to login to extranet? 

I'm in the same boat blarg

[1Q84]

53 minutes ago, slc4a3 said:

just got the email!!

I didn't get anything?!?! Are they only letting successful applicants know first?

 

EDIT: WAIT CHECK YOUR SPAM EVERYONE. I GOT THE AWARD!!!!

Edited March 1, 2023 by 1Q84

[brert]

Unfortunately I didn't receive the fellowship. For all the future record keepers out there, I was Committee 1 (Literature and Fine Arts), and received a score of 14.59/18. I was ranked 25/81 but they funded 23 applications with the last successful score being 14.71.

According to the letter I "will be advised without delay should additional funds become available." Does this mean I am second on the waitlist should 2 people turn down the offer?

[SSHRCDreams]

Funded in 2B. 3/47, 15.58/18, the last funded award in the committee was 14.80.

I had 4 single author articles, 2 under-review, 6 conference presentations. Might have helped that I had just completed my PhD.

To add to the anxiety of future applicants, it shows here that all the acceptance materials were added to my file two weeks ago, but they send everyone the account info at the same time. I was stressing out and all this time the acceptance letter was somewhere waiting for me! 

Edited March 1, 2023 by SSHRCDreams
Addition

[Boudicca]

Not Funded (Committee 3 - Anthropology/Archaeology) 37/84, 14.36/18, last funded award 14.99

I had 1 single author article and 1 co-authored (first author), 9 conference presentations, and substantial community collaboration.

Honestly I am more disappointed about what this means for the future of the project. Although I am now stressed about getting a non-SSHRC postdoc/job so I will be able to pay my bills, the SSHRC post-doc in my opinion doesn't offer enough financially for me to be truly upset about not getting this.

Congrats to those who were funded!

Edited March 1, 2023 by Boudicca
clarity

[HeatherCT]

Hi everyone. Huge congrats to those who were successful. To those who weren't, please remember that this is all such a gamble!

I was successful in committee 3. If anyone who didn't get it this year is up for applying again, then you definitely should! I came close but was unsuccessful last year. My scores went up quite a bit this time around with the same project.

In case it's helpful for anyone, here are the differences between my application this year and last: 2 more publications (one new, one that was an R&R in 2021 and accepted by time of application in 2022); a 4 month contract with Global Affairs Canada; one more presentation; and I taught another course. My capability skill improved significantly but of course I don't know which of these developments made the biggest impact, or if it largely comes down to a different committee handling the assessment. I re-wrote my program of work to be a lot more direct and clear (cut some of the more theoretical background and flowery language, wrote it in a more 'policy' sort of tone, if that makes sense). I am confident that this made a big difference as my challenge score went up a lot despite the project being the exact same as the year before.

[UC-23]

My email came in at 7:30pm ET last night but didn't see it until this morning (and wasted a whole night dreaming about clicking on emails that wouldn't open) 

I am funded! 

At the time of the application I hadn't defended my dissertation yet. I had two single-author articles, a co-authored public piece with a community leader, and a small public-facing digital humanities project. My research is on histories of violence/religion/gender in the recent past, so this is easier for me to do than others, but in my application I played up the policy relevance of my topic. This might have helped (see @PhDOG,ESQ's good advice above). 

In committee 2A (History, Classics, Philosophy, Religious Studies) I ranked 3/47. Score 15.53. 13 applications funded in total. Last funded award 14.36. 

For people in future years, I note that the overall success rate this year for SSHRC postdocs was 28%. This is a big improvement from the pre-2022 average of 18-20%. Maybe that's just because fewer people are willing to apply for this totally inadequate pay.  

[PhDOG,ESQ]

Hey everyone!

 

another loser here lol and HAHA - to think I was the one who came here with some insider knowledge!!

 

CONGRATS to @HeatherCT (thank you for the tips too!) @SSHRCDreams (you killed it!) and to @1Q84!!!!! And their spam folder  This is wonderful news for you all! Pour out a little liquor for us when you toast  

 

And to my comrades 

 

@fmlfmlfml@Boudicca

and @brert

Did all of you get the “merit review recommended you but we don’t have the money” line? I’m wondering if this is gaslighting or actually means anything. It’s SSHRC so I’ll bet on the former. 

 

My results are a lot like @Boudicca , same committee, and (humbly) I was pretty taken aback with how “meh” I was ranked.  
 

I have the urge to speculate but I also know how unhelpful it is. But I’m down to share some moral support with you all if you still want it 

 

Edited to add: I am working up the guts to tell my supervisor and referees the bad news. It feels crappy to disappoint the people who rallied for you. (But not as disappointing as it feels to tell my $$debt). 

Edited March 1, 2023 by PhDOG,ESQ

[PhDOG,ESQ]

Congrats @UC-23 !

lol I played up policy relevance a ton myself and didn’t get funded. You must have rocked it!!! CHEERS!!  
 

oh to all - PS: logging into the damn site was a nightmare for me too w all the error messages etc 😑

 

 

[UC-23]

Ugh, I am sorry @PhDOG,ESQand all the others who didn't get lucky this time. It really is a matter of chance, and who's reading your application that day. 

If it helps anyone to hear, I wasn't successful with the SSHRC doctoral until the fifth try, and even then just barely squeaked in. 

[PhDOG,ESQ]

@UC-23 that IS helpful to hear, actually. 

This board has been a small but important comfort for me  

[1Q84]

Sorry to yell about being funded and then run off... definitely echoing what others have said about it being a crapshoot. 

As you can see from my profile I'm an old timer round here. I failed to get the SSHRC doctoral award twice during my PhD and this is my second time around on the job market after a lot of rejection both last and this year, so I've definitely tasted my share of failure pie. I also was on the lower percentile of those funded this year (17th out of 23), so I kind of have a "just squeaked by" feeling. Sending my solidarity to all who weren't funded this year... but also echoing what Boudicca said, that the funding is really so terrible that I'm having some second thoughts myself. 

For transparency's sake and for future browsers:

Committee 1: Literature and Fine Arts

Challenge: 5.02/6
Feasibility: 4.90/6
Capability: 5.01/6

Score: 14.94/18

Rank: 17/81 

Fellowships offered: 23
Not offered: 58
Score of last funded applicant: 14.71

[SSHRC frustrations]

Congratulations to all who were funded and commiseration to those who were not.

Does anyone know if there is any way to find out why overall ranking would be apparently very at odds with scores? My scores are all in the very good range, and seem competitive, but my ranking is in the toilet. What a terrible process. 

I am more mature then most at this stage (I am 48), and I am wondering if my meandering career, while always in academia, just doesn't fit the system. I have taught at the university level for over a decade including directing a masters program for seven years, ran a research unit for ten years many years ago, and have over ten publications, though only a couple are first authored and recent. Both of my references were very strong (I was sent the letters) from experts in my field. My postdoc research was to be on a community-engaged project that is funded through a 3-year SSHRC Diversity grant, which I was the lead on writing and arose from my dissertation research and postdoc planning. The budget for this Diversity grant will now have to be reworked to eek out research coordination funds that will come nowhere close to covering the time this will actually take, and which will take away from monies meant to go to community and youth researchers. Maybe that's the problem, they felt I should already be funded by that grant, but there is no room in those funds for an actual researcher salary, as paltry as the post-doc salary is.

Sorry this is more a cartharsis and a rant, I am not trying to sing my praises I am sure those awarded are research superstars. Just trying to understand why I was ranked 54/64, though all more scores are 4.6 and above. I am thinking there must be a red flag in my application?

In solidarity and my best wishes to you all,

CL

 

 

Edited March 1, 2023 by SSHRC frustrations

[SSHRCDreams]

17 hours ago, UC-23 said:

My email came in at 7:30pm ET last night but didn't see it until this morning (and wasted a whole night dreaming about clicking on emails that wouldn't open) 

I am funded! 

At the time of the application I hadn't defended my dissertation yet. I had two single-author articles, a co-authored public piece with a community leader, and a small public-facing digital humanities project. My research is on histories of violence/religion/gender in the recent past, so this is easier for me to do than others, but in my application I played up the policy relevance of my topic. This might have helped (see @PhDOG,ESQ's good advice above). 

In committee 2A (History, Classics, Philosophy, Religious Studies) I ranked 3/47. Score 15.53. 13 applications funded in total. Last funded award 14.36. 

For people in future years, I note that the overall success rate this year for SSHRC postdocs was 28%. This is a big improvement from the pre-2022 average of 18-20%. Maybe that's just because fewer people are willing to apply for this totally inadequate pay.  

My committee to 2A twin! Very close score and both 3/47. Evidently, there is an undeniable causative relationship between being on this thread and being 3rd in Committee 2. 

@SSHRC frustrations @1Q84 @PhDOG,ESQ

I really feel for all of you. I didn't get a SSHRC Doctoral. Some of it was my project. I was told to apply for CIHR, and they said apply for SSHRC, and SSHRC wasn't sure if it should be CIHR, so I stopped applying. The other thing was some laziness in undergrad led to some B's, which took the wind out of my sails as a competitor. Toward the end of my PhD, I worked really hard to get a lot published, in part with the help of one of my committee members. In the end, I got lucky.

[PhDOG,ESQ]

Good morning winners and ragers! I’m pulling myself out of the gloom. My closest supports have been pretty disappointing so this board has been a big help. (sorry for my big font; no explanation)

@UC-23 Similar profile to you! This means you ROCKED it! ALL on your OWN merits! 

@1Q84 thank you for sharing the numbers, yours and the rankings etc. And congrats again! I remember it used to be (a decade ago) that getting SSHRC once was basically a lock for future SSHRC, ad infinitum. I’m starting to see a different picture now. It is good that SSHRC is being less insular and relying less on its own previous (de facto problematic) judgment.  

And thank you for confirming that  too @SSHRCDreams  

@SSHRC frustrations If it were me doling out this money, you  sound like an exceptionally strong candidate.  The fact that you worked centrally on the core funded project and were unsuccessful is maddening. 

Two insights, hopefully helpful for all:

First is re: career trajectory and teaching, mentoring

Earlier in my time in academia I got advice from some long-seasoned top faculty (TF, hereon) who ~knows things~ about how these ~things~ happen. They told me to stop teaching, in firmer language. At the time I was really focused on teaching to the detriment of my own research because I needed the money, and because there were complications with access to my research sites, beyond my control. But TF’s view was to avoid teaching at all costs; it gets in your way etc etc. 

I think this is expresses the shitty but realistic closed-loop political economy of early academia.

I didn’t take the advice but I see in hindsight its shrewd value. (spoiler reminder, I was unsuccessful this round). 

When hiring early faculty at major research universities now, they expect faculty divides their time 40% research, 40% teaching including mentoring grad students (!!!!), 20% admin. SSHRC only cares about that first 40%. That is all. They don’t care if we have mentored struggling students who are now making a difference in the same field, if we redesigned whole programs and revitalized our department’s ranking…. If we facilitated research that’s changing the world. That falls into the second 40% for them. They just don’t care. 

TL;DR SSHRC doesn’t care about a lot of the work that keeps the universities going, no matter how closely it is tied to the likely very high success (“impact”) of the applicant’s research.  

@SSHRC frustrationsIt sounds like you’ve done a lot of meaningful work that they have simply decided to ignore in their evaluation criteria. SSHRC is always yabbering about impact and community (see my first post!) but I think when splitting hairs in applications they don’t care unless they can see an immediate benefit to them. In this case they already funded your project so they may (wrongly) assess your specific role as repetitive. This is all speculation. But I am gobsmacked by your situation - it is so counterintuitive. 

Second insight: a TF-type just reminded me of this. SSHRC is mandated to equitably spread funds across the country, with consideration to University size of course. 

Let’s say 75% of the top picks for committee X are at U of T. Committee X can’t give 75% of that pool of money to U of T; they can give 40% at MOST. This means they have to pull that top 75% of applications back out and rip them apart at a new standard, tougher than the one met by the 25% whose spot is secured by university location, tougher than the original standard altogether. 

So 35% of the winning pool gets dumped. Then they pull from the originally lower ranked applicants to fill up those openings, or most of them, if the lower applicants were quite weak. (Messy program of study, meh reference letters). The new goal is distribution ratio.  

TLDR, applicant’s success is also tied to representational geopolitics. 

….Opening the floor on another topic closely related. The “committees.”

I’m starting to wonder about the politics in these selection committees… like if there is some unspoken coda or some such. 

I was comm 3 - I think. Whichever one was sociology and anthropology but also folklore and mythology. (Or similar?)

I’m a social scientist. Maybe my project was too “hard science”-y for this committee. Of course we will never know. So shall we speculate?!

Do you think the reading committee makes a big difference? Surely each reviewer must be UNfamiliar with 90% of what they read, respectively, so I wonder if it’s a crapshoot that depends on individual committee composition. (maybe a different committee would have LOVED a losing app). 

We’ve all been in universities for ages now so we’ve had our hand at reading a lot of work and applications in progress. I am trying to think sincerely about what biased (not prejudiced) my readings because we are all biased. 
 

is it time to make a separate MORALE thread!?

Edited March 2, 2023 by PhDOG,ESQ
Typo. I’m sure there are still

[UC-23]

Oh my, that is totally fascinating, @PhDOG,ESQ. I think you and TF are absolutely right about teaching. It's shitty, but hiring committees just don't care. 

But I did NOT know about the geographic distribution rules. That is truly a useful insight. And a good reason for everyone to come to the Maritimes--it's great out here! Seriously. And one thing that I, at least, keep forgetting is that you don't need to take your postdoc to a big department at a big school with a big graduate program. I know someone doing a humanities SSHRC postodc at in a topic-specific research centre at a small university that doesn't have a graduate program. 

[fmlfmlfml]

@PhDOG,ESQthis is such a thoughtful and unexpectedly uplifting response - thank you for taking the time to share these insights! 

I don't want to take away from the incredible talent and skill of our winners; I strongly believe that everyone who was successful this round is extraordinarily deserving of this award! You are all amazing! 

There is also a lot of luck in this process - I think anyone who was able to submit an application is a strong scholar, at the end of the day. It takes a hell of a lot of work to be at a place where you can put together an application, get strong references, etc. We are all at the mercy of committees and as anyone who has graded papers for undergrads knows, sometimes rankings and scores depend on the day. It sucks, but it is what it is. 

I'll also share what my prospective supervisor told me: we all know that there are less jobs in academia - almost no jobs, depending on your field. That means that more people are applying for post-docs, and more people are post-docing (formally or informally) for multiple years. That is, we are competing with people who graduated a few years ago, have had more time to build up their CVs and networks, and can't get a job (and therefore, need to post-doc).

Less jobs = more people in "post-doc purgatory" = more and more intense competition.

I can't even imagine what Banting competition pools must look like! 

Anyways, this is more commentary on a broken AF system, haha. But I at least think it's helpful to consider how the broader scope of "broken academia" plays a role in all of this.   

Edited March 2, 2023 by fmlfmlfml
clarity

[UC-23]

Very well said, @fmlfmlfml. Anyone who is putting together an application is already a skilled and capable scholar. When the difference between funded/unfunded projects comes down to tenths or hundredths of a point, there is no real distinction in quality between them. The root problem is with the decay of public higher education in Canada (and elsewhere). 

Also, for anyone who's applying again next year, if it's helpful to see someone else's application, I'm happy to share mine. Not having a sense of the possibilities within the genre was one of the most difficult things for me in writing my app. Feel free to shoot me an email at carlinek[at]msu.edu