NSF GRFP 2010-2011

[Lascaux3]

Looks like my reviewers couldn't agree on intellectual merit:

E/VG

G/VG

VG/VG

Comments were pretty constructive overall. It look like I need to be more explicit about the significance of the questions I'm trying to get at.

[compbio2011]

I still cannot access my review sheets (no link when I log in). I got a fellowship. Anyone else's review sheets still not available?

Looks like my reviewers couldn't agree on intellectual merit:

E/VG

G/VG

VG/VG

Comments were pretty constructive overall. It look like I need to be more explicit about the significance of the questions I'm trying to get at.

[owlpride]

Received a fellowship. E/G, E/VG, VG/E.

No publications, noted by all three reviewers. Two bumped down my Broader Impacts, one the Intellectual Merit.

[crimsonengineer87]

Why do some people get two reviewers and some get three? Is there criteria for when an app gets three reviews?

[Eigen]

Last year: HM from three E/VGs.

This year: VG/VG and VG/G.

What's particularly strange is that I received no negative comments, so it's impossible for me to pinpoint what might have influenced my reviewers to assign me these scores. My intellectual merit certainly hasn't worsened (I even slightly improved a proposal that already got perfect marks last year). In addition, I thought I vastly improved my broader impacts between this year and last (the positive comments I received seem to corroborate this), yet my score went down...

As I mentioned earlier, the same proposal with the same reviewers wouldn't garner the same ratings from one year to the next, as you're gaining more experience and are supposed to have a "better" proposal, especially from the IM standpoint.

In other words, what reviewers would consider a perfect proposal from a first year student wouldn't necessarily be considered a perfect proposal from a second year student.

Some of my reviews seemed kinda weird along with the scores- "I think this is a tremendous application from an outstanding applicant!" and then giving it a VG...

They were very uninformative, overall.

[Krypton]

As I mentioned earlier, the same proposal with the same reviewers wouldn't garner the same ratings from one year to the next, as you're gaining more experience and are supposed to have a "better" proposal, especially from the IM standpoint.

In other words, what reviewers would consider a perfect proposal from a first year student wouldn't necessarily be considered a perfect proposal from a second year student.

Frankly, I think the proposal is the area of the application with the least room for changing standards. Funding an undergraduate senior's proposal that is "sound enough" for an application at this stage but somehow not "sound enough" had it come from a first-year seems fairly ridiculous to me and contrary to the NSF's goals.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Krypton

[tso123d]

As I mentioned earlier, the same proposal with the same reviewers wouldn't garner the same ratings from one year to the next, as you're gaining more experience and are supposed to have a "better" proposal, especially from the IM standpoint.

In other words, what reviewers would consider a perfect proposal from a first year student wouldn't necessarily be considered a perfect proposal from a second year student.

Some of my reviews seemed kinda weird along with the scores- "I think this is a tremendous application from an outstanding applicant!" and then giving it a VG...

They were very uninformative, overall.

Eigen, do you mind sharing your scores? I'm curious what is enough for an award in our field.

[IRdreams]

The problem with score sharing is that we get nominal scores, but they are normalized during the process. For example, it is not obvious to me that I should have gotten a third reviewer with my fist two scores VG/G and VG/VG. Glad I did though (E/VG) since I wound up get the award. To people who have said that their scores do not reflect the substantive comments, I think this is again due to the fact that different reviewers are "harder" than others and the NSF corrects for this. For example, my most detailed review with constructive suggestions stemming from their excitement in the project was nonetheless my "lowest" review.

Edited April 6, 2011 by IRdreams

[je1230]

I got a VG/E, E/E, and E/E. The the very good was justified by a similarity between an REU project and the proposal (it was an extension of the research) and a potential lack of originality because of that. I think my 2 publications, international research experience (through a summer REU), and the variety of research I had (3 summers at different labs and 4 semesters of research at my university) helped a lot. Also, I've been involved in tutoring and TAing, chemistry demonstrations, and starting an ACS chapter at my school which I think helped the broader impacts.

I have a question. For those of you who might know. Do we need to follow through on the proposal that we wrote? I wrote that not knowing what university I'd go to (I'm currently a senior in undergrad) and where I thought I'd go changed when the professor I wanted to work for left. Now I'm looking at going to another school, but they don't have the resources to do the specific project I proposed (it requires some special collaborations and equipment). I'd still be working in the same area towards the same goal, but by a much different process. Is that alright?

Edit: I would still be in the same field of chemistry, just different research projects, though both towards the same end goal.

Edited April 6, 2011 by je1230

[compbio2011]

I got a VG/E, E/E, and E/E. The the very good was justified by a similarity between an REU project and the proposal (it was an extension of the research) and a potential lack of originality because of that. I think my 2 publications, international research experience (through a summer REU), and the variety of research I had (3 summers at different labs and 4 semesters of research at my university) helped a lot. Also, I've been involved in tutoring and TAing, chemistry demonstrations, and starting an ACS chapter at my school which I think helped the broader impacts.

I have a question. For those of you who might know. Do we need to follow through on the proposal that we wrote? I wrote that not knowing what university I'd go to (I'm currently a senior in undergrad) and where I thought I'd go changed when the professor I wanted to work for left. Now I'm looking at going to another school, but they don't have the resources to do the specific project I proposed (it requires some special collaborations and equipment). I'd still be working in the same area towards the same goal, but by a much different process. Is that alright?

You have no obligation to do the research you proposed. You are to stay in the same main field, but you do not even have to do research in the subfield you applied to (ie You can do research in Databases if you got your award for AI, but if you want to switch out of CS altogether you need NSF permission).

[msu_emily]

I'm still an undergrad student (female engineer), and I received the award for Engineering-Biomedical.

VG/VG, VG/G, VG/E (IM/BI)

The first reviewer didn't have anything negative to say.

The second reviewer commented that I was lacking specific testing metrics for IM, and that I needed to reach a bigger audience with my research.

The third reviewer said I needed a bit more research experience, but praised all of my leadership and outreach for BI.

[anotherflunky]

Frankly, I think the proposal is the area of the application with the least room for changing standards. Funding an undergraduate senior's proposal that is "sound enough" for an application at this stage but somehow not "sound enough" had it come from a first-year seems fairly ridiculous to me and contrary to the NSF's goals.

So I presume you think that grad students' proposals should be judged at the level of professors? If not, then pretend it's a separate program for each of the four levels just as GRFP is separate from NSF grants. But if so, lmao.

[Teelee]

I declared tenure after saving a copy of my reviews but now the file is corrupted. How can I request another copy of the review?

[kp12746]

I received the award with VG/E E/E and VG/E. Comments were kind of funny in that you can really tell how little time they have to read our apps. One reviewer said how I could have improved my app had I done some more conferences outside of my University. In fact, I had done this but the other University I went to has a name similar to my undergrad so I guess he/she just read it fast. No complaints here though of course, but that is really a shame if that happens and someone loses out on an award because of it. They should give them a little more time.

Edited April 6, 2011 by kp12746

[PotentialLunchWinner]

I received the award in Life Sciences - Animal Behavior, although my overall scores were lower this year than last year, when I got an HM.

This year, I got VG/VG, VG/E, and E/E. Last year I had two Excellents for my Intellectual Merit; however I had two VGs and one G for my Broader Impacts. It seems that bumping up the broader impacts really helped. One reviewer literally cppied and pasted my broader impacts paragraph into the BE section for his/her review, haha.

To be honest, it seems like the reason I was awarded a GRFP this year was due to the overall package, moreso than this particular proposal. The reviewers that gave me VGs mentioned some issues they had with the proposal itself, but said that based on the rest of the application and my previous work/publications, they felt that I had potential.

Moral(s) of the story: put effort into your personal statement and research experience as well as the proposal, and it's always a crapshoot.

Edited April 6, 2011 by PotentialLunchWinner

[andgc]

I got a fellowship for Life Sciences - Biochemistry and had E/E E/E G/E (IM/BI).

For IM, most of the comments praised the academic and research credentials. While the first two reviewers had positive comments for the research proposal, the third reviewer found it underdeveloped, hence the G.

For BI, I have been doing a lot of minority outreach in graduate school and the reviewers agreed this showed commitment. I also had clear examples of how to have BI through international collaborations and promotion of science among underrepresented minorities.

[JustMe]

VG/E , E/E, VG/E -> Awarded a fellowship

Field of Study: Engineering - Computer Engineering

Year: Finishing my second year of grad school.(this was the last time i could apply and coincidentally the first time i have tried)

All the comments were positive except one. On of my IM comments did say my UG GPA was a cut below the most competitive candidates but that was followed by a statement praising my grad GPA.

The other VG IM has no negative comments but they did not give me an excellent for some reason.

Full disclosure I did research every summer of my ungergrad career(2 National Labs, NSF funded REU, and Private Org) . Also very involved in diversity initiatives and expanding engineering into k-12 through the use of robotics. I also have a single first author publication from an undergrad research experience.

Edited April 6, 2011 by JustMe

[t_ruth]

I received a fellowship. Field: STEM Ed

E/E, E/VG, E/E

perhaps you need more Es if you are not an undergrad (I'm a second year grad student).

The VG told me both in IM & BI that I should have a publication (it is not typical in my field to have any publications until year 3 or later). Quote from BI: "This application could be

strengthened by additional evidence of ability to communicate research through publications, as well as a more detailed plan to encourage diversity and broaden opportunities."

Overall, most reviewers only wrote 2-3 sentences. I was hoping for more (like I had seen from colleagues), but I'm not going to complain since I got the award

[IRdreams]

I received a fellowship. Field: STEM Ed

E/E, E/VG, E/E

perhaps you need more Es if you are not an undergrad (I'm a second year grad student).

The VG told me both in IM & BI that I should have a publication (it is not typical in my field to have any publications until year 3 or later). Quote from BI: "This application could be

strengthened by additional evidence of ability to communicate research through publications, as well as a more detailed plan to encourage diversity and broaden opportunities."

Overall, most reviewers only wrote 2-3 sentences. I was hoping for more (like I had seen from colleagues), but I'm not going to complain since I got the award

So I received the award and am a second year student and only received one E. We only get the raw scores so I think it is pretty difficult to draw conclusions.

Edited April 6, 2011 by IRdreams

[meankney]

I'm a second year grad student and got an award with VG/VG, E/E, and VG/VG. I thought my reviews were helpful overall in terms of what gave me a VG vs. an E. For example, one mentioned that I didn't have enough presentations/publications to be at the same level as other second year grad students, which is something I expected them to mention.

[t_ruth]

Is it typical in your fields to have publications during your first year of grad work (since we apply at the beginning of our second years)? I imagine this varies field by field...

[jendoly]

I mean, at my school in general, I'd say publications are significantly less emphasized than accomplishing and building things, at least in engineering. As I've stated before, I'm very surprised I didn't get docked for my lack of journal papers as a first year grad student, and I doubt I'd have one before application season next year.

[Eigen]

Eigen, do you mind sharing your scores? I'm curious what is enough for an award in our field.

Not at all- I posted them a couple of pages back.

Frankly, I think the proposal is the area of the application with the least room for changing standards. Funding an undergraduate senior's proposal that is "sound enough" for an application at this stage but somehow not "sound enough" had it come from a first-year seems fairly ridiculous to me and contrary to the NSF's goals.

Eh?

I would say changing standards are exceptionally important for the proposal: you should have little to no preliminary results (and have had no time to work with the PI you're building the proposal based on) as a senior, as a first year the proposal should be much more specific, but still little preliminary results, and as a second year you should have good preliminary results on the work, and in some fields a publication based on those early results. Even if you have no preliminary results on your exact proposal, you should already have demonstrated research experience that shows your ability to carry the proposal through- results in other closely related projects, portions of other work that you either base your proposal off of, or parallel early phases of your proposal. You should also have time to develop collaborations with other research groups by your second year, and have time to directly connect how their work will relate to/support yours (and actually know that they've agreed to work with you) while that chance is much lower your first two application cycles.

I couldn't have written a proposal with near the specificity last year that I was able to this year, I also had no preliminary data last year and was able to talk about how my early experiments supported my proposal this year.

Maybe if you're continuing a project on from your undergraduate to graduate programs, you could have preliminary results before you start grad school... But I don't think that's the norm.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Eigen

[jendoly]

Maybe if you're continuing a project on from your undergraduate to graduate programs, you could have preliminary results before you start grad school... But I don't think that's the norm.

Poll: Do most people who apply as seniors write proposals based on the work they did undergrad? I definitely didn't, but that's not why I didn't get it last year (ie: wasn't one of their critiques).

[BlueRose]

I got a fellowship in Life Sciences - Computational Biology, and had VG/E, E/E, E/E.

There was some criticism, but at least it was accurate criticism. (Well, the third reviewer called me a dude, but still...) The VG had a backhanded compliment about "several short term research experiences"...yep. The research plan was "[strong but] a bit too ambitious"...yep. Nobody called out my middling grades, though, which surprised me (I have a 3.45).

On the plus side, two of the reviewers specifically mentioned that I did a good job combining outreach with the research. I built in a fourth aim that was specifically for Broader Impact...this may be the only part of the proposal that I will actually do, because it's pretty cool, but it was also a good strategic move to fuzzy up a topic that was otherwise human-interest-impaired.

Edit for jendoly: My proposal idea grew out of a course project from my senior year in undergrad...so I had been thinking about it for awhile, but had no preliminary data. Not sure if that counts.

Edited April 7, 2011 by BlueRose