How to put GRFP into your email signature without being pretentious

[Damis]

I just find it funny that people form these type of opinions based off of an email signature. I can't understand where you all are coming from, but I still gave my signature a quick look over lol. I noticed I was including some extra, needless stuff and promptly removed it. This has been an enlightening thread for me. Sorry if I came across as disagreeable or inconsiderate. I'll be more wary about this stuff moving forward, that's for sure! Thanks for the chat!

P.S. What's up with all the neg rep!? Love you too, I guess.

[starmaker]

You would be amiss, however, if you did not think that the individuals competing for the multiple fellowships out there don't have to find a way to set themselves apart from everyone else.

And I am pretty sure that the ones who are doing this successfully aren't doing it with their email signatures.

There are a bunch of contexts in which it's not only appropriate but necessary to play up your accomplishments. For example, an application of any sort (job, graduate program, fellowship). People who do well in these tend to set themselves apart by a combination of being proactive about finding opportunities, having good work to show, being able to write and speak well about their accomplishments and their potential, and (depending on what they are applying for) having good connections and social/professional networks.

Putting the highest-profile items from your CV in an email signature just seems odd. You could have professors with an email signature that went on for half a page. If you really want people to be able to find these things from your email signature, include a link in the signature to your professional website or your LinkedIn profile, and mention them there, since those are both great places to put lists of accomplishments.

Since you asked, no, I don't have an NSF, but I have one of my school's two most prestigious internal master's student scholarships, and I don't put it in my sig.

[jendoly]

My signature (that I program into my Outlook and my iPad) is

First name Middle Initial Last name

Degree Candidate

Laboratory Name

Department Name

Institution

Email address (some might include a phone number as well, but I'm more accessible by email)

Sometimes I delete this from my iPad (because it uses it as a signature for email sent from my Gmail too, and I don't always want all that identifying info in the Gmails I send), but the nice thing is that Outlook only includes it if you are composing a mail from scratch - not in replies. Therefore your email train doesn't get all mucked up with your signature over and over.

Someone said above that they don't think including info about the degree you're a candidate for is good - a lot of grad students at my institution put all of the above info (save maybe replacing the degree candidate with "Graduate Student"). In my department, we send a lot of RFQs and RFIs to industry partners and it is often important to establish with those people who you are on a project, especially if you have undergraduates working for you and also emailing people about the project. I include the specific degree I'm a candidate for (currently a masters, though I intend to go on for a PhD) to give people within my institution a relative idea of how long I've been there so that they don't mentally assign me a greater degree of institutional history knowledge than I actually possess. xD

Back to the original point of the thread - I have an NSF and a couple of other fellowships, but I wouldn't include that in my signature. The main reason for this is that anyone who needs to know that (or to whom I'm wanting to convey that fact) either already knows it or is getting my resume enclosed as an attachment =P I do however call myself a "research fellow" as opposed to "research assistant" on places where I am to list my job title, etc. That conveys that I am on fellowship without having to say which one super blatantly, which I feel reduces any potential pretentiousness.

Edited July 23, 2011 by jendoly

[IRdreams]

My signature (that I program into my Outlook and my iPad) is

First name Middle Initial Last name

Degree Candidate

Laboratory Name

Department Name

Institution

Email address (some might include a phone number as well, but I'm more accessible by email)

Sometimes I delete this from my iPad (because it uses it as a signature for email sent from my Gmail too, and I don't always want all that identifying info in the Gmails I send), but the nice thing is that Outlook only includes it if you are composing a mail from scratch - not in replies. Therefore your email train doesn't get all mucked up with your signature over and over.

Someone said above that they don't think including info about the degree you're a candidate for is good - a lot of grad students at my institution put all of the above info (save maybe replacing the degree candidate with "Graduate Student"). In my department, we send a lot of RFQs and RFIs to industry partners and it is often important to establish with those people who you are on a project, especially if you have undergraduates working for you and also emailing people about the project. I include the specific degree I'm a candidate for (currently a masters, though I intend to go on for a PhD) to give people within my institution a relative idea of how long I've been there so that they don't mentally assign me a greater degree of institutional history knowledge than I actually possess. xD

Back to the original point of the thread - I have an NSF and a couple of other fellowships, but I wouldn't include that in my signature. The main reason for this is that anyone who needs to know that (or to whom I'm wanting to convey that fact) either already knows it or is getting my resume enclosed as an attachment =P I do however call myself a "research fellow" as opposed to "research assistant" on places where I am to list my job title, etc. That conveys that I am on fellowship without having to say which one super blatantly, which I feel reduces any potential pretentiousness.

I think the research fellow idea is a great one. I always struggle with the pretentiousness issue....but then I'm probably also pretentious.

[Eigen]

Yeah, I do the "Research Fellow" as opposed to "Research Assistant" thing as well.

I don't do enough regular formal correspondence that I see the need for as long of a signature as you have- but I certainly use something similar when I'm communicating with collaborators.

Many people upthread have mentioned that a name/institution are enough to have someone google you... But that requires them taking the time to do so. I find if the information is easily accessible (at the end, in list form) as opposed to buried within the introductory paragraph, the responses come faster and with much less confusion.

[lewin]

In my area a "research fellow" is something akin to a post doc--you have a PhD and are hired as a researcher in somebody's lab. Grad students wouldn't call themselves research fellows even if they had some kind of graduate fellowship. So pay attention to norms in your field

[Eigen]

The difference is in what you put before it, in my field- but you are right, my last post was a bit incomplete.

A researcher would be a "Research Fellow" of some institute, a graduate student on fellowship would be a "Graduate Research Fellow". I just assumed the first part was a given, and went from there. Similarly, you don't put "Research Assistant", as that can be anyone from a lab tech to a post-doctoral researcher- it's a "Graduate Research Assistant". That graduate part is necessary, imo.

[snowblossom2]

I agree with what's been said re: including it in your signature is pretenious. I'm in a social science field and for what it's worth I have a few prestigious fellowships (including NSF) and am at a top 20 university. No one in my department - faculty, post doc, grad students- put any of their fellowships in their email signature.

Name

Title (e.g. PhD Candidate, Graduate Student)

Department

University

Email

I just find it funny that people form these type of opinions based off of an email signature. I can't understand where you all are coming from, but I still gave my signature a quick look over lol. I noticed I was including some extra, needless stuff and promptly removed it. This has been an enlightening thread for me. Sorry if I came across as disagreeable or inconsiderate. I'll be more wary about this stuff moving forward, that's for sure! Thanks for the chat!

It's all about presentation of self and presenting yourself as a professional (grad student) in your field

[punkybugsy]

I'm in a fellowship program at my school that's part of an NSF IGERT and they flat out tell us to put it in our signatures. I always sign my email with the appropriate level of formality either way and don't use my signature as the end to my emails.. and I don't think it comes off as pretentious .. when receiving emails from other people with that in the signature I've never taken it to be pretentious.

[snowblossom2]

I'm in a fellowship program at my school that's part of an NSF IGERT and they flat out tell us to put it in our signatures. I always sign my email with the appropriate level of formality either way and don't use my signature as the end to my emails.. and I don't think it comes off as pretentious .. when receiving emails from other people with that in the signature I've never taken it to be pretentious.

It must be a discipline specific thing

[anacron]

I'm not sure if email signatures are all that important. If the point is to present your research and to make connections, you should probably put up a website and register for LinkedIn. You can put all of your info on those sites without seeming pretentious. After all, a personal website (or LinkedIn) is essentially a repository for everything you've ever done (awards, experiences, publications, presentations, etc.). I don't see why you need to force this information on people.

If people are really interested in learning more about you then they can easily Google for you or refer to your research lab's personnel page. The only thing I would suggest is: use your college email rather than your gmail. For people with common names the college name would be a distinguishing factor.

[der Träumer]

I was actually wondering about this same question the other day when I noticed one of my professors includes that he is a Fulbright Scholar in his email signature. But I didn't think NSF was nearly as prestigious to include.

Fulbright solved this tricky issue by assigning @fulbrightmail.org email addresses. It's definitely a subtle way of showcasing yourself without dealing with the dilemma of signing off as:

So-and-So

FULBRIGHT SCHOLAR

[rising_star]

I'm in a fellowship program at my school that's part of an NSF IGERT and they flat out tell us to put it in our signatures. I always sign my email with the appropriate level of formality either way and don't use my signature as the end to my emails.. and I don't think it comes off as pretentious .. when receiving emails from other people with that in the signature I've never taken it to be pretentious.

IGERT is a totally different ballgame from GRFP. IGERT is a program that you participate in, not just a grant that you won (esp since the grant is won by the interdisciplinary faculty that serve as PIs and co-PIs, and not the graduate students they admit).

[Hillary Emick]

I have seen fellowships in grad students' signature lines and didn't think it was pretentious.

[interestingmix]

I also have NSF GRFP. I do not have it in my signature.

Here is why.

Even though I personally would not be turned off by such a signature piece, there are people who are. Even if it is only ten percent of people. The people who need to know of your fellowship will know because you tell them because it is important information. The one person who misinterprets the fellowships home in your email signature may be the person you need on your side. Basically, I do not think that you will miss out on opportunities by not including the information in your signature, but I think that you might by including it.

It was like someone on this thread stated previously. You would not include it in your signature if you received a Nobel or Pulitzer or whatever. If you were an actor, you wouldn't state the number of academy awards for which you had been nominated.

It's up to you though. Really, I don't think it will make a big difference either way.

[hungry]

OP, I think you vastly overestimate how much people will care, as nearly everyone has a fellowship... Just use your name, nuff said. They will judge you based on the school name in your email anyway, no need to start making every email into a resume. As far as if it comes off wrong, yea, it will.

Hello,

I found out this April that I recieved the GRFP, and was wondering how other people put it into their email signature. All the grad students I know that got it put it in their signature, but do so in various ways, and the name of the fellowship has changed as well, so I was wondering what others do. One person does this:

Joe Bob

PhD candidate

NSF predoctoral fellow

School, program etc.

Another does this :

Mary Jane

PhD candidate

National Science Foundation Fellow

School program etc

how on earth do you say you are a GRFP'er?

The main reason I'm asking is that I'm trying to start a collaboration with people I have not met before and it would be helpful to have it in my introductory emails.

Thoughts comments?

[wildviolet]

I once had a mentor whose email signature was:

First Name Last Name, Ed.D.

Position and Institution

200X XX State Teacher of the Year

Pretentious? Yes. Why do I need to know that you were State Teacher of the Year X years ago? IMO, listing it on your CV is enough.

[charliebitmyfinger]

I also have NSF GRFP. I do not have it in my signature.

Here is why.

Even though I personally would not be turned off by such a signature piece, there are people who are. Even if it is only ten percent of people. The people who need to know of your fellowship will know because you tell them because it is important information. The one person who misinterprets the fellowships home in your email signature may be the person you need on your side. Basically, I do not think that you will miss out on opportunities by not including the information in your signature, but I think that you might by including it.

It was like someone on this thread stated previously. You would not include it in your signature if you received a Nobel or Pulitzer or whatever. If you were an actor, you wouldn't state the number of academy awards for which you had been nominated.

It's up to you though. Really, I don't think it will make a big difference either way.

I am one of the people who listed my fellowship in my email signature. Self promotion, insecurity, message from the dog planet, who knows? Based on this discussion and the good feedback, I have removed the fellowship listing. As summed up very well by interestingmix, the risk-benefit calculation is definitely negative.

[Jimbo2]

Definitely would not include it.

#1 It's pretentious no matter how you slice it. Might as well include the admission statistics for your program in the signature.

#2 Anyone that's actually seriously considering you for any sort of advancement or opportunity will have your official CV, which will include the fellowship.

#3 Anyone that's familiar with the NSF GRFP knows that luck/diversity plays an enormous part in receiving the award; from my personal experience, people that make a point of letting you know that they are fellows are the ones that have benefited the most from luck/diversity rather than actually being the top students in our program (not trying to be offensive, just objective). To be honest, including "NSF Fellow" in a signature looks like someone's compensating for weaknesses elsewhere.

#4 Four line signatures in chain emails are annoying; your boss probably won't like it.

So yeah, I'd omit it.

[j3doucet]

Maybe I'm way off base on this, but I tend to lend more credence to people who include such things in their email messages, rather than less. Maybe NSF is more random than the Canadian equivalent, but the impression I have for both awards is that the people who hold them are, by and large, solid researchers.

Now, granted, there are researchers who do not hold national fellowships who are also strong, but an NSF or NSERC award is an easy signal to me that you've been vetted, and that I shouldn't worry to much about your competence if I want to work with you. Putting it in your signature is definitely going to make me more likely to view you favourably.

Now granted, I both hold such an award and do _not_ mention it in my signature, but maybe that's a good thing given what I read here.

Just wanted to point out that there are people out there who don't view it as pretentious at all, and who are glad to see it.

[franks98]

Meh. . . I just sign my first name. My first and last show in the person's inbox. I see a lot of people in my program with extensive signatures and I kinda roll my eyes at it -- more so if the person is annoying in general. If it's necessary that someone know something about me, I'll introduce myself as such. I think there was some study done showing the negative correlation between signature length and number of achievements/pubs/notoriety.

[Usmivka]

I think there was some study done showing the negative correlation between signature length and number of achievements/pubs/notoriety.

I won't really believe this until I see it, but I love it anyway.

[franks98]

I won't really believe this until I see it, but I love it anyway.

Cool. I didn't just make this up. I figured there was a good possibility that I did and that I would now have to do a study on it. I found the study that I was thinking of: "Symbolic self-completion in academia: evidence from department web pages and email signature files" (Jones, Schmeichel, & Jones, 2008). Interestingly (for social psych folks), it comes from the research on terror management theory. The abstract:

Symbolic self-completion theory proposes that individuals use symbols of attainment to define themselves as accomplished in self-defining areas and to communicate their accomplishments to others. The goal of the present research was to examine whether individual professors and academic departments strive for symbolic self-completion when communicating through the Internet. We hypothesized that publications, citations, and departmental rankings by the National Research Council (NRC) represent important indicators of attainment for professors, whereas professional titles (i.e., “doctor,” “professor,” or “Ph.D.”) may serve as alternate symbols of attainment. We predicted that a lack of important indicators of attainment would motivate the display of professional titles in web pages and email signature files. In Study 1, academic departments with less prestigious NRC rankings listed more professional titles on their departmental web pages compared to departments with more prestigious rankings. In Studies 2 and 3, professors with lower annual rates of publications and citations displayed more professional titles in their email signatures compared to professors with higher publication and citation rates. These results suggest that self-completion motives help to shape naturalistic Internet communications. The results further suggest that analyses of Internet communications can provide externally valid tests of theories concerned with motivation and self-processes.

[Eigen]

I'd be interested in reading the article, would you mind posting a reference for it? A DOI would work great as well.

[franks98]

I'd be interested in reading the article, would you mind posting a reference for it? A DOI would work great as well.

Sure thing:

Symbolic self-completion in academia: evidence from department web pages and email signature files (Jones, Schmeichel, & Jones, 2008)

European Journal of Social Psychology

Volume 39, Issue 2,pages 311–316, March 2009

DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.541

If you have institutional database access, PsycInfo would probably get you the article quickly.

Edited June 27, 2012 by franks98