NSF GRFP 2010-2011

[anotherflunky]

Poll: Do most people who apply as seniors write proposals based on the work they did undergrad?

No. Same broad topic (graphene-based devices) but it was not a project I'd done or anyone at my university was doing. I just made it up.

[kp12746]

I applied as a senior and my project was not what I did as an undergrad but it used related experimental techniques.

[illini2015]

I received an honorable mention. But I received 4 reviews, did anyone else get 4 reviews? Does anyone have an idea why? Interesting...

VG/E

VG/E

G/VG

VG/VG

Edited April 7, 2011 by illini2015

[BlueRose]

I received an honorable mention. But I received 4 reviews, did anyone else get 4 reviews? Does anyone have an idea why? Interesting...

I suspect the rankings were too spread out - maybe they gave you an extra review as a tiebreaker?

Edited April 7, 2011 by BlueRose

[uksawfly]

I got an Honorable Mention with E/G, VG/G, and VG/VG. My reviewers wanted more specific examples of how I would do educational outreach, but otherwise thought I was well-prepared.

[uksawfly]

I suspect the rankings were too spread out - maybe they gave you an extra review as a tiebreaker?

Agreed, I read somewhere that if the scores they give us are too far apart, they have to re-discuss your application to make sure you're not being discriminated against or something.

[illini2015]

Thanks gang, that sounds reasonable. Looks like I got screwed by the 3rd reviewer and the 4th wasn't much better...darn!

EDIT: So if your application goes to the third reviewer, it means that you are close to getting an award? And if the third reviewer gave similar ratings, in my case a third VG/E, then I would have gotten an award? Just wondering since I am planning for next year

Edited April 7, 2011 by illini2015

[tso123d]

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

Oops, sorry I didn't notice. Thanks!

[itsbcos]

Applied as a senior Bioengineering student before my PhD.

(IM/BI) #1 VG/G #2 VG/VG --- No award or HM offered

Both reviewers mentioned that they loved pretty much every part of my grades/research experience/etc., but that the only issue that they had was that I didn't have any publications or presentations (I suspect the latter was a bigger issue than the former). I mentioned that I was expected to be a co-author on at least two papers by the time I graduate, but I think that the fact that I never did any formal poster sessions/presentations came back to bite me.

On my broader impacts, they liked that I participated in STEM outreach activities, and they felt that I exemplified a clear passion for bringing science to a broader audience. However, one reviewer (the Good scorer) mentioned that they would like to see more leadership roles being taken, and that I should try to integrate teaching and my research more closely. The other reviewer (the Very Good scorer) mentioned that I didn't make my plans for future educational outreaches clear.

Hope this info might help anyone in the future!

[je1230]

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).

You could say I based my proposal on a previous REU project, but I developed the idea independently and used my summer project as the groundwork (my summer project was developing a method, I proposed an application of that method into a technology stage, making something useful). The proposal was thought up after the project and was further developed to use the method I worked on, but it was not the summer research itself. One of the reviewers gave me a VG in the intellectual merit category because my proposal was similar to the prior research and they questioned the originality.

[nsfplz]

VG/E, G/VG. I didn't get anything, not even a third review. Disappointing...

[smarmie]

I'm a current undergrad and applied under Cultural Anthropology. I didn't really think I had a shot at this since my GPA at the time was a 3.7 and my GREs were a 1220. My reviews were:

E/E

E/E

VG/E

Glowing praise from the first two reviewers, both with lengthy explanations.

The third reviewer gave very short comments and the criticism on the IM was that I needed to have more of an agricultural background and should have included agricultural resources in my bibliography. I thought that was kind of a weird critique because while my proposal did mention a social movement's use of agroecology, it was focused on peasant identity and rural to urban migration, not the actual mechanics of how to grow food. Oh well, it was enough to earn me an award so I'm certainly not going to complain.

Edited April 7, 2011 by smarmie

[kdilks]

Thanks gang, that sounds reasonable. Looks like I got screwed by the 3rd reviewer and the 4th wasn't much better...darn!

EDIT: So if your application goes to the third reviewer, it means that you are close to getting an award? And if the third reviewer gave similar ratings, in my case a third VG/E, then I would have gotten an award? Just wondering since I am planning for next year

In your case, yes, but in general, you can't be sure. You can think of the reviews as being done in two stages. In the first stage, they use the scores from the first two reviewers to decide who is getting rejected, and who moves on to round two. If the two reviewers give the same person significantly different scores (when normalized against all the other scores they've given), then they have a third person give a review to determine whether or not you make round two. Then in round two, all remaining applications get one additional review, and then it's determined who gets awards, who gets HM, and who gets nothing. So if you have three reviews, it could mean that you made it to the second round, but it could also mean your first two scores were significantly different and a third reviewer's score was needed to decide that you didn't make the second round. Since you had four reviewers, I would assume that you needed an additional review in the first round, and still made it to the second round.

[psyentist4good]

VG/E, VG/E, G/VG.

Looks like the third reviewer wasn't feeling my application as much as the first two. Oh, well. The feedback they gave was really helpful.

[thedelstar]

VG/E VG/VG and E/E.

I am in love with my third reviewer.

She/He also mentioned how great my project was for the PI I wanted to work with.

noted : GPA is not as high as peer group in this very competitive GRF pool. ( I have 3.57)

But noted it was from a bad semester 3C's and was very positive about the r4est of my record is great.

Im so glad it looked like she/he really READ my app.

senior chem!

edit: ps. i got it.

Edited April 7, 2011 by thedelstar

[t_ruth]

One thing funny is that my school (and others) tell us that grades don't matter in a PhD program, but my reviewers specifically noted my success in coursework.

Can you tell by my revisiting this thread so much I really am still in a bit of a state of shock?

[meankney]

One thing funny is that my school (and others) tell us that grades don't matter in a PhD program, but my reviewers specifically noted my success in coursework.

Can you tell by my revisiting this thread so much I really am still in a bit of a state of shock?

I keep coming back too for the same reason.

[klox]

I received VG/VG, G/G. The first reviewer criticized: "The proposal would benefit from indicating specifically how diversity will be promoted." My broader impacts focused on tutoring undergraduates, teaching, and K-12 stuff, but I didn't specifically bring up diversity (doh).

The second reviewer gave me a lot more criticism. He brought up:

1. Under IM: My undergraduate GPA of 3.54/4.0 from u of illinois urbana "is not very high". I have minors in mathematics and physics. I should have explicitly said my technical is 3.8 in my essays, but I didn't. That might have helped me out. Forewarning to future apps if you've got similar numbers.

2. Under IM: Lack of publications: "However, he don’t [sic] have any publication record up to now and is a weak applicant compared to the others." I wasn't aware that electrical engineers should have publications by their first semester of their graduate track. I probably won't have any publications next year either (switching focuses, don't have an advisor, and playing catch-up). I did have an undergraduate senior thesis and gave several presentations to undergraduates, but I guess those don't count for much.

3. Under BI: "However, the applicant is weak on the leadership aspect and publishing his research findings. His research plan needs to state broader impact more clearly." My broader impacts were focused on mentoring, tutoring and teaching, which I guess isn't considered leadership. I wasn't a part of any organization as an undergrad. My personal essay is where I focused most on the broader impacts. At the end of my research paper I included a small section outlining the technological benefits (one of the broader impacts criteria), but I think I should have discussed mentoring/teaching again. I didn't really think publications were a part of broader impacts, but I guess it was a big issue for this reviewer.

Overall pretty frustrating. I thought I was good on the broader impacts criteria this time around (my second time) in my personal essay, but I guess I should have included more in my research proposal. Hope this helps someone.

Edited April 7, 2011 by klox

[Anthro14]

G/G and VG/E. I'm kinda wondering how there can be that big of a split on my Broader Impacts. How can 1 reviewer only see it as Good, but the other see it as Excellent. Almost proves what a crap shoot it is.

[mposa]

E/VG

E/G

E/G

Reviewers were all keen on the IM, but I was apparently lacking in the BI category. The actual feedback for BI was all over the place, oh well.

Honorable Mention.

[Steph11]

Hi everyone! Congrats to the winners and HM-ers!

I'm entering grad school in the Fall (yay!) and I was wondering: since people are only typically in grad school for three months (give or take) before the GRFP due dates roll around again, do you find that's enough time to get to know a professor(s) well enough that they will write you a letter of recommendation? Or do you ask some of your undergrad professors to write for you also?

[hardydrew]

GAH!!! I accepted and declared tenure before I saw my reviews!!!! has anyone done this, and any tips for finding your reviews once you've done this? In my excitement I failed to read all their disclaimers that 'once you've declared tenure, you will be unable to view/print your reviews.' a;lkdfj;alsfjas. thoughts?

Thanks!

[aardbei]

For those who are wondering about inconsistencies between 2010 and 2011 ratings: My school's CO found out that due to the storms of 2010, many of the volunteer reviewers were unable to travel to the reviewing site last year. The NSF had to recruit local postdocs, junior faculty--whoever they could find who had a PhD--to fill the gap. This means that 2010 ratings may not have been a fair representation of how our apps measured up against NSF standards. (I don't know which fields this applied to...I think there are at least 2 reviewer meetings covering different areas, and I don't know if both groups faced this problem.)

[newage2012]

congrats to everyone here. Hope the government shutdown won't affect the payments.

[husky]

VG/E VG/VG and E/E.

I am in love with my third reviewer.

She/He also mentioned how great my project was for the PI I wanted to work with.

noted : GPA is not as high as peer group in this very competitive GRF pool. ( I have 3.57)

But noted it was from a bad semester 3C's and was very positive about the r4est of my record is great.

Im so glad it looked like she/he really READ my app.

senior chem!

edit: ps. i got it.

They criticized my gpa as well (3.59), but I got raving reviews for broader impacts, and undergrad research experience. I was so worried that my gpa would be a deal breaker, but it looks like they really do consider the applicant as a whole. I guess strengths in one area can compensate for weakness in another.