NSF GRFP

[BioMedSciMed]

I'm wondering where this 2000 number keeps coming from...?

yeah, It's from someone who called and was told that there are 200 people left in the limbo category.

[blah2009]

So for people calling, try to see if you can get any answers about whether the hold up is about the recent 3 billion stimulus money being used for NSF GRFP. I actually talked to the lady on the message once. I'll try tomorrow also. Once this week is over though, you most likely won't hear from me on this board anymore..=). It's consumed my life for sure.

[Dan334477]

I really don't understand the compulsion to call NSF all the time. Knowing what the source of the delay is won't make the delay any shorter.

[skinkididoo]

I really don't understand the compulsion to call NSF all the time. Knowing what the source of the delay is won't make the delay any shorter.

true, but if we know more about the delay, we will possibly stress out less and potentially have a better idea of when to expect more results so we can get back to work. i've got a bachelor's thesis to write...

[blah2009]

Knowing the source of the delay will definitely help some in terms of stressing out, and more importantly upcoming decisions. If we can find out that the source of the delay is the previous budget, then this is indicative of a minimal number of additional awards. This would be a definitive sign that i should pursue more lucrative internships this summer (for job security since my phd. depends on this) whereas if the delay is due to discussion on how to spend the 3 billion stimulus towards GRFP, I would be more inclined to pursue research based internships. Obviously, i do not advocate bombaring them with calls. And it is great that posters here are posting updates after calls, to inform others and to prevent others from calling with the same questions.

[bioangele]

Obviously, i do not advocate bombaring them with calls. And it is great that posters here are posting updates after calls, to inform others and to prevent others from calling with the same questions.

Hear hear!!!

[foobaraq]

I saw an earlier post about someone receiving a rejection email in response to a status inquiry... has anyone else received a rejection between Friday evening and now?

[scienceteacher7]

I've been reading this board from overseas after I saw the ambiguous posting on the fastlane page and received no email (even after checking my other accounts and my junk-mail folder).

If it makes any of you feel better...I think that a significant amount of this whole thing is luck and a person's ability to tell NSF what it wants to hear. I took a rather unusual path after undergrad...after being an alternate for a Fulbright and never getting bumped up, I joined Teach For America and spent the next three years of my life teaching science to mostly Latino kids in the inner-city . I received an honorable mention last year...my grades and GREs were good, I had done 3 NSF REU programs and some other research internships, and spent 3 years spending most of my waking hours trying to improve science education for under-served children. One of my reviewers said that an "excellent in the broader impacts category is a no-brainer" yet another gave me a "good." So, each reviewer can have very different opinions. All three said that I should have published already so they, therefore, doubted my commitment to science. My proposal probably wasn't so good. I improved the things the reviewers commented on, and still didn't get it this year.

However, I know several people who have won NSFs and I read their applications. Several did small amounts of volunteer work or tutored in a school for a few days and then tried to turn that into a profound understanding of inner-city kids and to claim that they would be role-models. So, many people actually lie or bend the truth greatly to say what the NSF wants to hear. One of these people won the NSF plus several other large prestigous national fellowships...he's actually kind of an asshole but he's really smooth in writing what people want to hear. Also these groups often tend to award people awards if they already have a big award -like a goldwater or something similar. I talked to several professors who sat on NSF GRF committees and *they* even told me that awards were often a bit random...one said that the NSF depends on how much money you have and the universities and GRE prep programs that that money allows you to take...another said that some committee members have a bias towards their alma matter (spelling?) or they give more awards to small liberal arts school students because they think they have had less opportunities for research...another told me that the NSF dissertation improvement grants depended on the merit of the research and she really didn't think that the GRFP was based on merit as much as other factors. I'm not trying to insult the merit of anyone who won the award - you were probably more qualified than me. However, I have been told these things by very successful scientists, one of whom was the graduate dean of a very prestigious university. Some universities have a staff member who is paid to help applicants write and re-write national fellowship applications...the people are coached heavily and they gain an unfair advantage. So, don't let not getting the NSF ruin your life. I had a couple of margaritas, complained to my friends and family, and went swimming.

I wish everyone the best of luck. Also, consider doing something non-academic for a few years...you will discover that the rest of the working world doesn't really care what program you went to, what your GREs were, or what fellowships you got...these are the obsessions of academia...and 95% of our country doesn't know what an NSF is

Knowing all of this, I just try to console myself by saying that "sure, I didn't get any of these things...only alternate or honorable mention, but at least I have been honest, kept my dignity, and worked hard...if the fellowship gods don't shine their light on me, I'll keep going and take a more winding path." I have met many successful scientists who also did not win the NSF or the other big awards...and they still turned out ok...they might have had to TA a lot or live cheaply, but they still became successful. Best wishes

[math123]

scienceteacher7, wonderfully put! You sound like you have a good head on those shoulders. I wish you the best of luck!

[meowser]

Here is the response I got this morning after emailing NSF to check my status. Not really any new info, but I figured I'd keep people updated...

Dear *****,

Thank you for your interest in the National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP).

At this time, your application status is still pending. All applicants whose status is currently pending will receive either an honorable mention, or if additional awards are available, may receive one of the additional awards.

Unfortunately, we regret that we do not have a specific timeframe for the final decisions about how many awards can be made. We will, however, notify applicants as soon as possible when a decision has been made. We sincerely appreciate your patience.

If you have any further questions, please contact this office toll-free at (866) 673-4737, via postal mail at the address below, or via email at info@nsfgrfp.org

Sincerely,

GRF Operations Center

1818 N Street NW

Suite T-50

Washington, DC 20036-2479

Website:

www.fastlane.nsf.gov/grfp/

www.nsfgrfp.org

[nsfhopeful]

Thanks for posting that, Meowser!

[Higgins_the_Brave]

Here is the response I got this morning after emailing NSF to check my status. Not really any new info, but I figured I'd keep people updated...

I got that same email this morning after writing to info@nsfgrfp.org. I just sent a quick, one-line email with my name and application ID asking them to confirm that my application was still pending. If anyone is still nervous that their rejection letter was lost, I recommend emailing. It's non-invasive and won't make you as nervous as picking up the phone :wink: What I don't understand is why they didn't send this email to all 2100 of us when they sent out the rejections and acceptances; it would have saved them a ton of phone calls and it just seems like the decent thing to do. But whatever...

[anthro27]

I hate to throw a wrench, but...When they say that they want to fund 3,075 fellows, don't forget that this is a 3-year fellowship and previous years' winners are still receiving money. It does not mean that there will be a 2,000-fellow increase for this award year. If the budget increased by 30%, then we should see maybe a few hundred more new fellows at most.

[Neurone]

I don't think awards made during previous years are an issue. The number of awards have been relatively constant over the past several years, so even without an increase they would still be able to fund current fellows and the baseline number of new fellows. With an increase, we'd just see more new fellows.

[anthro27]

I don't think awards made during previous years are an issue. The number of awards have been relatively constant over the past several years, so even without an increase they would still be able to fund current fellows and the baseline number of new fellows. With an increase, we'd just see more new fellows.

So, if they already have 2,000 existing fellows from previous years, and they want to fund 3,075, then I think you are saying that they will fund 3,075 new fellows this year? That would make a total of 5,075 fellows. I don't think it works that way. I agree that new funding will allow more new fellows, just not 2,000 new ones as some people here seem to believe.

[math123]

anthro is correct. If you receive a fellowship, they don't set 3 years worth of money aside for you--just enough for that one year.

[Neurone]

So, if they already have 2,000 existing fellows from previous years, and they want to fund 3,075, then I think you are saying that they will fund 3,075 new fellows this year? That would make a total of 5,075 fellows. I don't think it works that way. I agree that new funding will allow more new fellows, just not 2,000 new ones as some people here seem to believe.

I believe what it means is that this year they want to fund 3,075 new fellows.

[weninger]

I just called the 800 number hoping to edit my primary field of interest after I reviewed my application and realized I put down the wrong damn field (FYI: Comp Sci. AI != Database and Information Sciences).

They said that this was impossible because the reviews have already been done, they're just looking over the rankings now. She also said that they hoped it would be done by the end of this week.

I thanked her for putting up with all of the calls.

[science]

Got an email back saying my "status was pending" I guess there's nothing else to do now but wait! Glad to clear my mind of an email mishap!

[PSi_light]

That stinks. I have a feeling I might have picked the wrong field subdivision too.

[foobaraq]

I just called the 800 number hoping to edit my primary field of interest after I reviewed my application and realized I put down the wrong damn field (FYI: Comp Sci. AI != Database and Information Sciences).

They said that this was impossible because the reviews have already been done, they're just looking over the rankings now. She also said that they hoped it would be done by the end of this week.

I thanked her for putting up with all of the calls.

This makes alot of sense... There had been some previous speculation that the review committees would be re-reviewing applications to determine who would receive additional awards. I doubt this could happen, as my research indicates that the review process is so involved and requires so much administrative support that it's unlikely they could have put anything together between the announcement of stimulus funds and the notification of awards. Further, as the post above mentions, all of the applications should already have a numeric score, and thus it should be quite easy to determine who will receive additional awards - given a funding level. If this is the case, it would seem to indicate that there exists a real possibility that a significant number of the remaining ~2000 applicants will actually receive an award, and the cause of the delay is truly a funding level question in which a large portion of the remaining applications receiving an award is a viable option. Otherwise one would expect that they would have applied a numeric cut-off at some value and kicked a chunk of the limbo folks an HM.

[Neurone]

This makes alot of sense... There had been some previous speculation that the review committees would be re-reviewing applications to determine who would receive additional awards. I doubt this could happen, as my research indicates that the review process is so involved and requires so much administrative support that it's unlikely they could have put anything together between the announcement of stimulus funds and the notification of awards. Further, as the post above mentions, all of the applications should already have a numeric score, and thus it should be quite easy to determine who will receive additional awards - given a funding level. If this is the case, it would seem to indicate that there exists a real possibility that a significant number of the remaining ~2000 applicants will actually receive an award, and the cause of the delay is truly a funding level question in which a large portion of the remaining applications receiving an award is a viable option. Otherwise one would expect that they would have applied a numeric cut-off at some value and kicked a chunk of the limbo folks an HM.

This was my impression as well.

[Higgins_the_Brave]

bum bum bum...

waiting for things makes me fat. *eats cookies*

[caezar86]

"The approximate timeframe for additional announcements is within the next two weeks."

This is up on the front page of http://www.nsfgrfp.org/.

I guess that's better than nothing. So by the end of April?

[BioMedSciMed]

So, if they already have 2,000 existing fellows from previous years, and they want to fund 3,075, then I think you are saying that they will fund 3,075 new fellows this year? That would make a total of 5,075 fellows. I don't think it works that way. I agree that new funding will allow more new fellows, just not 2,000 new ones as some people here seem to believe.

all of this is from from NSF website:

here's the money they planned on requesting for 2009

"Estimated Number of Awards: 900 to 1,600 new awards will be offered pending availability of funds.

Anticipated Funding Amount: $36,450,000 to $64,800,000 for new fellowships in FY 2009 pending the availability of funds."

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08593/nsf08593.pdf

here's the money they actually got

Funding for GRF in FY 2009 increases by $28.6 million (nearly 30 percent) to $124.8 million. This will support an estimated 3,075 fellows, an increase of 700 over the FY 2008 level

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=111084

and then, as far as I can tell, three weeks after this, the stimulus package gave them another 3billion. I'm not saying that it means there are going to be zillions of additional fellowships but I am saying that as far as my inexperienced eyes can tell, the money IS there, and it appears that they planned on giving away 1,600 NEW fellowships if they got 64mil and they ended up getting twice that. so it appears to me (again, i'm not experienced in federal funding) that they ideally wanted to make 3075 NEW fellowship recipients in 2009.