NSF GRFP

[p-nut]

im not sure if this has been reported yet, but if you google "nsf gfrp 2009", the second hit that comes up states, "Prior to May 1, 2009 these scores will be reported only for the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program, to the fellowship applicant, ...". It is the program solicitation. When I read through it again, I didn't see that date listed anywhere, nor the quote, so idk. But I thought I would throw that bit of info. out there for those who might be pissed to hear there may be another delay after april 15.

This quotation describes the circumstances under which NSF will pay for you to take the GRE. Full context:

"Graduate Record Examination Registration

NSF will pay Subject Test registration fees for applicants who register for the November 8, 2008 administration under two conditions: (1) the NSF Fellowship application is the primary purpose, and (2) the GRE registration form for the November test is received at ETS no later than October 3, 2008.

The following condition is imposed on the reporting of the November 8, 2008 GRE Subject Test scores when NSF pays the test fee. Prior to May 1, 2009 these scores will be reported only for the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program, to the fellowship applicant, and to the applicant

[Polymath1976]

im not sure if this has been reported yet, but if you google "nsf gfrp 2009", the second hit that comes up states, "Prior to May 1, 2009 these scores will be reported only for the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program, to the fellowship applicant, ...". It is the program solicitation. When I read through it again, I didn't see that date listed anywhere, nor the quote, so idk. But I thought I would throw that bit of info. out there for those who might be pissed to hear there may be another delay after april 15.

good luck to all...

My guess is that what you saw refers to the GRE subject test scores. If the NSF pays for the test, you can't use the scores in grad-school applications until after that date.

[shaydlip]

How do you know it's 90% stacked against you? This sounds like an academic imposter syndrome to me (not that we all don't experience it sometimes, just sayin' don't count your chickens before they hatch).

Honestly, it's probably such a small amount of people that they can reject for certain right now that it's almost worthless. Would you really rather be on a waitlist? I do see your point though- but I have a suspicion that the upper-ups are so frantic worrying about other things that the thought hasn't crossed their mind, particularly b/c they themselves have been told "just a few more days" from other people.

[dingaling]

My guess is that what you saw refers to the GRE subject test scores. If the NSF pays for the test, you can't use the scores in grad-school applications until after that date.

you are probably right! let's hope that's it. :mrgreen:

[Polymath1976]

you are probably right! let's hope that's it. :mrgreen:

Yes, p-nut has the details in the post a few items up.

[vice]

The 90% probably stems from the fact that there is basically a 10% acceptance rate for most disciplines.

If all applicants were 100% equal then your odds would be 1 to 9.

We of course know this not to be true; women, minorities, and people from less common geographical locations might have higher chances.

We also know that some applications are disqualified; we can also safely assume that some of the applications will just be half baked and not real contenders.

So the odds are most likely better than 1 to 9.

[mtlve]

How do you know it's 90% stacked against you?

That is the actual statistic. Only 10% of people actually get the award, so 90% of us will not get one. Yeah I hope for one, but the statistics don't support this. It may be more this year, but I will not believe it until we see it.

[snowcapk]

What was the recipe for that hiroshima?

[Polymath1976]

The 90% probably stems from the fact that there is basically a 10% acceptance rate for most disciplines.

If all applicants were 100% equal then your odds would be 1 to 9.

We of course know this not to be true; women, minorities, and people from less common geographical locations might have higher chances.

We also know that some applications are disqualified; we can also safely assume that some of the applications will just be half baked and not real contenders.

So the odds are most likely better than 1 to 9.

This looks like it could be a good back-of-the-envelope Fermi problem: an order-of-magnitude handicapping of award odds.

[mtlve]

We of course know this not to be true; women, minorities, and people from less common geographical locations might have higher chances.

I really do not think that this is a huge factor. This does not come in to play until you make it to the top 30% pile, and I still question that it is such a huge factor at that point.

I think that the biggest factor is who is serving on the panel to review the apps. If a panal member is a Stanford alumni that studies T cell differentiation, they will be more likely to select applicants from Stanford and applicants studying t cell differentiation. If the panel member thinks studying GPCRs is a waste of time, applicants that propose to study GPCRs will have almost a 0% chance of getting an award.

Random question to add: Does anyone know if they publish the panel participants?

[t_ruth]

Do you think the benefit to women is discipline specific? I don't imagine they see a shortage of female psychology applicants...

[cyclopeaneye]

Read this comic:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1472

Be sure to hover your mouse over the red dot in the lower right. Laugh. (Repeat as necessary)

[iluv2fly1]

I really do not think that this is a huge factor. This does not come in to play until you make it to the top 30% pile, and I still question that it is such a huge factor at that point.

I think that the biggest factor is who is serving on the panel to review the apps. If a panal member is a Stanford alumni that studies T cell differentiation, they will be more likely to select applicants from Stanford and applicants studying t cell differentiation. If the panel member thinks studying GPCRs is a waste of time, applicants that propose to study GPCRs will have almost a 0% chance of getting an award.

Random question to add: Does anyone know if they publish the panel participants?

As I understand it, they choose the people to award it to without regard to race or gender. Then they go back and allocate a few additional awards to the top minorities and females not selected already. So that means that depending on how many minorities there are and how many additional awards there are, they could end up going quite far down the list for minorities.

[mtlve]

Do you think the benefit to women is discipline specific? I don't imagine they see a shortage of female psychology applicants...

In that case the men probably get the benefit. I think the biosciences is the same. Female physicists and engineers may get a boost.

[vice]

It isn't a HUGE factor. I cited a paper before that found that as one of their conclusions.

There are also some women only awards in Computer Science & Women in Engineering.

Race and Gender probably don't come into play until they are handing out the awards vs. HMs. At that point it defiantly does.

[skinkididoo]

Read this comic:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1472

Be sure to hover your mouse over the red dot in the lower right. Laugh. (Repeat as necessary)

hehe

[vice]

We should also keep in mind that when a particular type (gender, race, location) is rare, that person has often had to triumph over adversity in order to get to where they are; this would in general make that person more "special" than someone who did not have to "try as hard."

The women only awards are the only place that it is clearly (ie NSF is transparent) a benefit to be a woman applicant.

Ethnic Diversity of 2008 Reviewed Applications*

African American 3.4%

Asian 10.2%

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.2%

Native American 0.6%

Caucasian 72.3%

Multi-Ethnic 1.9%

Hispanic or Latino 5.9%

No Response 9.4%

*Includes all submitted applications including those deemed ineligible after submission.

Surprisingly low percentages for some of the groups... nsf keeps quiet on the actual awarding percentages.

[mtlve]

As I understand it, they choose the people to award it to without regard to race or gender. Then they go back and allocate a few additional awards to the top minorities and females not selected already. So that means that depending on how many minorities there are and how many additional awards there are, they could end up going quite far down the list for minorities.

If you look at some of the reviews of this new NSF GRFP system, they comment on how minorities are not doing well in the process. Hence I do not think this is true. I do not think they would pull minorities from the non competitive pile, but they might move one from hm to award pile.

I have talked with the people that actually help with this step of the process, and they have all downplayed the role of minority status in naming awardees. In terms of the geographic distributing, they said that they make sure there is at least one awardee from each state. If a state is missing and a person from that state is the HM pile, they may get pulled up. Otherwise, it sounded like it really was not a factor.

[vice]

11. Does the program portfolio have appropriate participation of

underrepresented groups?

Comments: The award-rate percentage is higher for underrepresented

minorities than their percentage of participation in the program. However,

the actual number and percentage of applications received from minority

students does not reflect their representation among college-aged students.

Numbers remain small, and growth limited, despite NSF and ASEE outreach

efforts. The number of female applicants and recipients is appropriate;

however, these numbers are skewed by the additional funding provided by

the ENGR and CISE directorates.

From:

http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/activities/co ... GRFcov.pdf

[vice]

http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/activities/co ... GRFcov.pdf

Actually has an amazing amount of juicy information.

Defiantly worth looking at if you plan to apply again next year

[ChivPowers]

This NSF thing is certainly taking a while, but it seems like we all have a better chance at the award because of it. Maybe we should just let the NSF do their jobs and stop nagging them with calls, keep ourselves busy with the academic work we all know we have to do, and get the notification when it comes. Don't get me wrong, I'm just as anxious about it as everyone else, but don't we all have more to do with ourselves than worry about whether we obtain one prestigious fellowship? There will be many MANY more fellowships in our futures -- I know there will be in mine.

For those who are absolutely convinced their application was crap, why the hell do you care then? Why don't you just write it off as a loss, move on with your life, and if you get it, yippity! I don't think you'll get it though because if you aren't confident in your application, noone else is going to be either. -- which brings me to another point, the NSF isn't going to fund applications that are not high quality just because they got some extra funding. It's likely they'll give the actual award to a bunch of the HMs and then have a shorter HM list -- or at least that's what I think they should do. It would be horrible for the future of science for them to fund average applicants merely because they could.

To CuriousD, the information you posted is much appreciated on this end.

Yea, so that's my take after having been reading all of these crazy posts for the past week. It was time to chime in.

[blackbeard]

What was the recipe for that hiroshima?

AAAARRRRRRRRR, matey! It do lie here:

Ah, the Hiroshima. First, take one shot of everclear. Put into it one red maraschino cherry, which symbolizes the "red button". Light the shot on fire, and drop it into a pint glass of Kirin (a Japanese beer). Drink it down as fast as you can. It is truly a drink of last resort.

However, if ye be a true jolly sea rover, then ye be goin' ta drink a bottle o' rum. This be only fer lubbers an' scurvy bilge rats. Yo-ho-ho!

[ddrum001]

I don't think you'll get it though because if you aren't confident in your application, noone else is going to be either. -- which brings me to another point, the NSF isn't going to fund applications that are not high quality just because they got some extra funding. It's likely they'll give the actual award to a bunch of the HMs and then have a shorter HM list -- or at least that's what I think they should do. It would be horrible for the future of science for them to fund average applicants merely because they could.

While I agree with your first point on getting to other work, I don't think the NSF funds any where near all the reasonable proposals. While the prestige of the award may go down with higher acceptance %, it is my opinion that the government funding of basic science vs. other projects such as general defense is way under what it should be. If the NSF simply gave all the HM people funding(maybe less than current awardees) and eliminated the HM, similar to what you proposed, the full awardees would maintain prestige but still science funding would improve.

Then again, I'm a scientist so perhaps I'm biased, but so is everyone else here!

[gb6]

at least there's a new south park on. 30 less minutes of stress.

[emcuebe]

at least there's a new south park on. 30 less minutes of stress.

Do you like fish sticks?