TXTiger2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Y'all are either very bored or very crazy. And please, I don't mean that in a derisive way at all! More of a friendly, teasing, "My god, I wish I had the time to graph that all out" kind of way eco_env, Chronos, avampa and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delta16 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Well we now know it might be early April based on Facebook.... http://www.facebook.com/NSFGRFP firefly luciferase and vertices 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illini2015 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 woweeeeeeeeeee can't believe the NSF is using facebook to announce something so important. It's not even on fastlane. Thanks for the heads up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guttata Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 It's not on Fastlane but its the same generic statement as they have on nsfgrfp.org. Newsflash: Late March is "around Early April." No new information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepbreath Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 My vote is on the morning of Tuesday, April 3. Previous years indicate a preference for the first Tuesday in April. I need to stop over-analyzing this stuff.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockhopper Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 woweeeeeeeeeee can't believe the NSF is using facebook to announce something so important. It's not even on fastlane. Thanks for the heads up! I agree it seems strange that they would use Facebook to announce dates. Well of course now I've got to go and Like this page... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svh Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) I like the time-series analysis up there. Very nice. Edited March 23, 2012 by svh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maath805 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Here are some extra data points! 2008 - March 31 2007 - March 26 2006 - March 30 2005 - April 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo2 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Sat, Thu, Mon, Mon, Fri, Tue, Tue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svh Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I'd like to see a plot of your residuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthro.fish Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) More Fellowships this year? From the NSF Fiscal Year 2011 Budget request to Congress: "The Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) program, (16 percent increase to $158.2 million); an Administration priority, supports the development of the Nation’s future scientists and engineers. FY 2009 marked the beginning of a growth trajectory to triple the number of new awards made each year to 3,000 by FY 2013." http://www.nsf.gov/a...view_fy2011.pdf (Overview Page 3) Edited March 24, 2012 by Anthroman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin_xc1 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) More Fellowships this year? From the NSF Fiscal Year 2011 Budget request to Congress: "The Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) program, (16 percent increase to $158.2 million); an Administration priority, supports the development of the Nation’s future scientists and engineers. FY 2009 marked the beginning of a growth trajectory to triple the number of new awards made each year to 3,000 by FY 2013." http://www.nsf.gov/a...view_fy2011.pdf (Overview Page 3) " - $10,500 cost-of-education allowance to the institution (anticipated to increase to $12,000 for 2012)" Most likely means more funding as well as more offers. If you think about it, since funding is for 3 years, and there's ~2,000 applicants who receive it, an increase of $1,500 per applicant per year would cost an extra $9,000,000. Edited March 24, 2012 by Calvin_xc1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maath805 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 The graph looks curvilinear more than anything. I don't think a general linear regression is quite appropriate :-/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syn2012 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I can't believe that we may only have a week left to wait. Incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maath805 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 ^^ Here's hoping it's just a week! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejmurphy Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 From a fluid mechanician's point of view, your graph looks like the result of a statistically stationary random process, the mean is sufficient. Chronos and skeebaloo 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agradatudent Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) I had a dream that NSF released the winners... but I woke up to find that is not true. Edited March 25, 2012 by toypajme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illini2015 Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I had a dream that NSF released the winners... but I woke up to find that is not true. I also had a dream that the results were released Saturday night. It was actually a nightmare. Read the reviewer comments and got another HM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uksawfly Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) I haven't dreamed about the results yet - I've been buried under a pile of other small grant applications - but I'm sure it's not long in coming. I also just found out some of my family is visiting during the timespan NSF is likely to announce the GRFPs, so on the bright side they can take me out to dinner to A.) drown my sorrows again (more likely) or B. ) celebrate. Edited March 26, 2012 by uksawfly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koopahtroopah Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) So, even after obsessively reading endless pages in this year's forum (and from previous years)...I'm still a bit confused about certain "factors" that might contribute to your chances of getting an award. I mean, besides the obvious factors including the strength of your proposal, how you address broader impacts, your academic background, PUBLICATIONS, and letters of rec, there are also other determinants including sex, race, the state you received your high school diploma, and whether you wear boxers or briefs...can anyone confirm? Edited March 26, 2012 by koopahtroopah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamom Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I also had a dream that the results were released Saturday night. It was actually a nightmare. Read the reviewer comments and got another HM This wait is seriously crazy-making. Sigh! I keep telling myself I'll be ok as long as I at least get an HM since I have one more year to apply... oh, and that as long as the reviewer comments are constructive, I can even take rejection... any other "it'll be okay" mantras out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo2 Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 my "it'll be ok" mantra is a bit two sided... i think my proposed research essay sucks now, which means the one i would write next year should be much better, but then i'm really not sure how this year's application will go. an HM would be ok, but to be honest the $100K and funding to upgrade from a M.S. to a Ph.D. program that's the difference between the award and the HM would be huge for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepbreath Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) I tell myself it'll be okay if I don't get it because I can reapply next year, but I don't think my attempts to calm myself are working. I'm still thinking about the results more than I should be. This morning I even checked fastlane for messages about being down before I checked my email. x_x Edited March 26, 2012 by deepbreath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlevine Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) It appears that results have been released on the first Tuesday of the month for the past few years, so I predict that the results will be released on April 3. They also sometimes come out on Fridays, so my second guess is April 6, which is the Friday of the same week. Also, here's a frequentist estimate that ignores the day of the week. Among other invalid assumptions, we assume that the last six years are a random sample of years, #!/usr/bin/Rscript release_dates_text <- c('Apr 17', 'Mar 23','Apr 1', 'Apr 10', 'Apr 6', 'Apr 5') release_dates <- as.POSIXct(release_dates_text, format = '%b %d') conf.int <- as.POSIXct(t.test(as.double(release_dates))$conf.int[1:2], origin = '1970-01-01') print(mean(release_dates)) print(conf.int) and we get a 95% confidence interval of the population mean of March 27 to April 14 (much wider than the credible interval that qlathrop estimated). And if we had to guess based on this analysis, we'd say April 5. But again, this estimate is stupid because it doesn't consider domain knowledge; considering day of the week, I predict that the results will be released on April 3 or maybe April 6. Edited March 26, 2012 by tlevine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo2 Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 haha very nice. i'm hoping for a leak like there was a couple years ago, but the folks at NSF have probably fixed whatever the glitch was. 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