Eigen Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I am planning on deferring for a year to use up another year of my current funding and give myself a little longer. But then my other fellowship is not a federal fellowship. And I know part of the point of the optional "year off" in the middle of the NSF was to be able to take advantage of other funding sources (TA, RA, other non-federal fellowship). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IRdreams Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I think part of what the petition is complaining about is how the NSF will now handle TAships. I gather that it used to be that you could get an exemption from the NSF that allowed you to TA and have the fellowship if your adviser felt that TAing was critical for your professional development. Apparently, they are disallowing this practice. Since the fellowship has reserve status, this change likely will not hurt students just going into their programs that much. However, later applicants might not be able to develop a suitable teaching resume as a result of the policy. It is a little bit of a bummer. I think the NSF is concerned that you would get NSF$$$+TA$$$ and they are trying to stop that, but in many programs you just get NSF$$$ which is more than TA$$$ but you still TA since proving to that SLAC that you are a good candidate requires significant teaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t_ruth Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Nothing would stop you from getting teaching experience by doing lots of guest lecturing...wouldn't that be a way to combat the lack of teaching experience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eigen Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 You can still do a TAship... It just can't be a paid TAship. I TA a class every other semester and grade for another... But it's just for the experience. I get paid from a fellowship. I can still do that if I get an NSF, the teaching experience is still there. And departments love free TAs. The major benefit is since you're doing it free, you often have a lot more control over what classes you TA, how many, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkompiles Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I could be mistaken. I was pretty sure I saw it a couple weeks ago. I totally hear you about the productivity. I'm dragging my feet trying to write my Master's thesis and am definitely using gradcafe to distract myself! I *definitely* saw it at least a week ago, maybe 2. But who knows if the web admin is at all connected to scholarship decisions; probably just following a preset schedule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kkompiles Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Well, I know for both NDSEG and NSF you CANNOT have both. You cannot even defer NSF for two years to take NDSEG and then NSF. (http://www.nsfgrfp.o...r_2011_nsf_grfp) Wow, I totally missed that! This is awesome because now there will be even more fellowships! I feel like there was a significant overlap of people winning both in previous years...which was very nice for them, but caused some other people on the bubble to lose out completely. Since NSF and NDSEG are based in the same physical office (at least the transcript send-in address) I wonder if they'll coordinate? Hahah probably not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krypton Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I feel like there was a significant overlap of people winning both [NSF and NDSEG] in previous years I believe the quoted number is 25% of NDSEG recipients also received the NSF, or 50 people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherflunky Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Heh, I love how people are already thinking about how they'll be using their fellowship money. hawkeye 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illini2015 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 (edited) I had a dream last night that I got an NSF fellowship. It was so real that it was disappointing to wake up and realize that I still have to wait another week or three to really find out! Apparently my subconscious is more positive about this than I am--when I'm awake I'm very pessimistic about finding out the results. I just had a terrible nightmare last night. It was so vivid I woke up at 5 AM and had trouble going back to sleep. I dreamed that I did NOT get the fellowship and what was worse was to see the rating sheets. I saw that my advisor rated me lowest among all the other ratings, haha! I'm going insane! Edited March 23, 2011 by illini2015 waddle and hawkeye 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acg Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 The pull down list is the same, but the default 2011 offered award as the default has been there for at least a couple weeks, so I doubt it's significant. We'll see, though! The earliest notification in the past few years was March 24 and they tend to do it on Fridays so it could be this Friday. The last two years it wasn't announced until April. Last year the email went out on April 6th (a Tuesday) and I think it was the 7th the year before that. I have a feeling we have another few weeks... :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uksawfly Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 The last two years it wasn't announced until April. Last year the email went out on April 6th (a Tuesday) and I think it was the 7th the year before that. I have a feeling we have another few weeks... :-( This is likely true...UGHHHH! The closer it gets, the more I just want to know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmk Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 The last two years it wasn't announced until April. Last year the email went out on April 6th (a Tuesday) and I think it was the 7th the year before that. I have a feeling we have another few weeks... :-( The prospect of a timely announcement looks especially bleak given the budget debate in Congress. :-/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t_ruth Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I just like watching the chatter on here grow exponentially, reach a fever pitch and then die out in silence until 10 months later olive81 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olive81 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 We only have 26 pages to go to be on par with last year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tso123d Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 The prospect of a timely announcement looks especially bleak given the budget debate in Congress. :-/ I was actually wondering if that would be a factor or not. After all, it seems unlikely that the budget will be approved within the next week or so, but the NSF has not given any indication that the fellowship awards may be delayed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherflunky Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I'm personally hoping for a huge delay now. Looking at past years, this thread gets more entertaining the longer this goes on. Maybe we can break the 2009 record and get 300 pages! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crimsonengineer87 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 I hope this doesn't beat the Fulbright thread I'm also on! Fulbrighters are also waiting and it's basically anytime as well, but depending on the countries they applied to ... I think the last year's Fulbright thread was long as well ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmk Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 (edited) I was actually wondering if that would be a factor or not. After all, it seems unlikely that the budget will be approved within the next week or so, but the NSF has not given any indication that the fellowship awards may be delayed... Hopefully NSF's lack of comment on the issue can be taken as a good thing. An earlier poster called/emailed about this issue and was told they have no information about it.... I called today and asked if the delays in setting the budget would delay award announcements. I was told, "We don't have any information on that, so I can't answer your question. Sorry." Edited March 24, 2011 by mmk repatriate 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherflunky Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Hopefully NSF's lack of comment on the issue can be taken as a good thing. An earlier poster called/emailed about this issue and was told they have no information about it.... Actually, based on past years, the ones who pick up the phone seem to just be some contracted agency or perhaps they're part of the NSF but are not really guys with any inside info. They don't seem to know anything except for the basics that can be found on the NSF websites so you're not going to learn anything unusual through calling. So when they say they have no information about it, that's exactly what they mean: they really don't know because the NSF hasn't told them. fluffy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdilks Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Getting rid of the concurrent employment clause seems like something I should have gotten an e-mail about. I hope they haven't made a similar change to the other fellowship I'm on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmk Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Actually, based on past years, the ones who pick up the phone seem to just be some contracted agency or perhaps they're part of the NSF but are not really guys with any inside info. They don't seem to know anything except for the basics that can be found on the NSF websites so you're not going to learn anything unusual through calling. So when they say they have no information about it, that's exactly what they mean: they really don't know because the NSF hasn't told them. Unsurprising. But then, I wouldn't really consider something as significant as the budget debate delaying award announcements as unusual, at least in the sense that it's a common concern and many people will have questions about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat84 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 So Ive read alot online about how the GRFP gives weight to minorities, women, the disabled, and geographic location. Does anyone know if they go into the review process with that criteria in mind for a certain applicant, or is everyone on the same playing field and the "other" factors are considered for boarder line cases once everyone has been considered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmk Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 (edited) So Ive read alot online about how the GRFP gives weight to minorities, women, the disabled, and geographic location. Does anyone know if they go into the review process with that criteria in mind for a certain applicant, or is everyone on the same playing field and the "other" factors are considered for boarder line cases once everyone has been considered? Officially, the GRFP awards fellowships on the basis of merit in two areas. You can read about it here. I'd be interested to see a source cited for the "gives weight to..." statement. Membership in those groups cannot by any reasonable definition be classed under merit. Perhaps what you are referring to is NSF's open, significant encouragement of the participation of those groups in the fellowship competition, as well as research proposals that facilitate the participation of those groups in science and engineering (i.e. "broader impacts"...see previous link). I know of no place where the GRFP states the weight of (non)membership in those groups on your application's competitiveness or in how it is evaluated (if anybody does, I would be interested to see...). Until shown otherwise, I think we must assume all are on equal footing, with decisions by the GRFP based on intellectual merit and broader impacts. Edited March 24, 2011 by mmk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat84 Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 on the first page of the thread ""The computer first surveys all the QGI members to determine if each state is represented among the awardees. If, for example, no one who has graduated from high school in Alabama is in QGI and one is available in QGII, he or she will be chosen. ... If the state search does not fill the available slots, a second pass is done for gender balance, followed by disciplinary balance and proportional equivalence between [pre-grad school] and [current grad student] applicants." " 2010 application announcment " A high priority for NSF and GRFP is increasing the diversity of the science and engineering workforce, including geographic distribution and the participation of women, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities." It seems to me up for interp. Are they saying that the GRFP wants the diversity and geographic distribution for broad impact? or are the outright saying they will, as stated in the first quote, give preferential treatment to those in less represented areas? *food for thought* repatriate 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmk Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 (edited) It seems to me up for interp. Are they saying that the GRFP wants the diversity and geographic distribution for broad impact? or are the outright saying they will, as stated in the first quote, give preferential treatment to those in less represented areas? *food for thought* Food for thought indeed. I would take the publication's statements regarding the GRFP review process with a grain of salt since it's dated, but it's insightful nonetheless. Again though, without statements detailing the exact nature of the algorithms used, it's difficult to say much other than that gender, ethnicity, etc. are auxiliary criteria that are possibly significant for (probably) a minority of applicants. At least that's what I get out of the article...it's somewhat unsatisfying. You bring up a good point. Edited March 24, 2011 by mmk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now