NSF GRFP 2011-2012

[eco_env]

There are no specific guidelines. If you want to go outside your past experience, you need to be able to tie how your previous work prepared you for the proposed project. Your PI should at least have done something similar enough that he would be considered able to advise you on your proposed project, as well as have the facilities necessary for what you're proposing to do.

Since you aren't tied to what you propose, it's sometimes better to write a proposal based on something in your and your proposed advisors wheelhouses, instead of something more difficult to support that's more far flung. Then you can just do that project when you get to grad school.

Some of this may be a bit off the mark for an undergraduate applicant, but from what I understand most still applies. Just like any grant, your proposal can't be so far outside of what you've done in the past that they question your ability to pull it off.

I guess it doesn't apply so much in ecology- I read some of the applications on Rachel Smith's website (mentioned above), and many of the successful applicants were proposing research that was pretty different from what they did in undergrad.

[eco_env]

I'd be interested to see some failed applications and their rating sheets (particularly in ecology). It looks like successful applicants have international experience to show broader impact and specific hypotheses to show intellectual merit, but I'd need to see what an unsuccessful application looks like to confirm. Anyone have unsuccessful applications to share?

[starmaker]

I'm having trouble getting a handle on how in-depth our summaries of past research experience should be. After all, the whole essay can only be two pages long; that's hardly any space at all! I saw the winning CS essay linked to in the OP, but that applicant only had a few past projects. Even if I limit it to CS projects that are directly relevant and/or resulted in a publication or presentation, I end up with seven projects. That comes out to very little space per project. How much are people writing about each research experience?

[IRdreams]

Focus on the projects that have taught you something relevant to the research you are proposing. The previous research experience essay is not about giving them your CV. It is about telling how you have worked to completion on things and demonstrated that you have picked up useful skills along the way. It should thus be part of the narrative for your proposed research. Something like: "My work on X will be applicable to my proposed research for the following reasons." This is all about producing a consistent narrative which demonstrates your competency and professionalism. If you still are unable to pair the down, chose those projects which either demonstrate the largest success or were most recent so you have better letter writers also speaking about how you were awesome at that project and thus will kick ass in grad school.

Edited August 12, 2011 by IRdreams

[cogscipixie]

Hello everyone!

I noticed that the NSF GRFP website still has not listed the 2012 guidelines documents yet and it's the end of August. Does anyone know if they are still not counting GRE scores, just for my advisor's and my own piece of mind? Thanks!

[gellert]

^ Not only are they not counting GRE scores, I believe they aren't even accepting them as optional submissions anymore.

[alexhunterlang]

The NSF GRFP website is being slow to update the specific criteria for this year's applications, but that is not an excuse to procrastinate! The rules don't change much from year to year, so start writing your essays now. Good luck everyone.

[ma7eb4i]

The solicitation is posted! Happy writing!

[alexhunterlang]

Go to http://www.nsfgrfp.org/ for the latest details.

Here are the deadlines this year:

2012 GRFP Application Deadlines - submitted by 7:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time

• November 14, 2011- Engineering
  
• November 15, 2011 - Mathematical Sciences; Computer and Information Sciences and Engineering; Chemistry; Physics and Astronomy; Materials Research
  
• November 16, 2011 - Social Sciences; Psychology; Geosciences; STEM Education and Learning
  
• November 18, 2011 - Life Sciences; Interdisciplinary
  

Reference letters are due on Tuesday, November 29, 2011 by 7:00 p.m. EST

[Jimbo2]

glad they pushed back the LoR dates. i remember last year i was like "uh hey so i've been doing research in your lab for 3 weeks but i'm gonna need a letter in a month... thanks!" it turned out well, but still i could see that going bad.

[JakeW]

This is probably a really stupid question, but where do I find this years prompts? Are they even up yet?

They didn't seem to be in the solicitation and it doesn't seem I can register for this years GRFP applications yet.

[starmaker]

Bah. They changed the extenuating circumstances for eligibility, and I'm definitely out now. Oh well.

[Bimmerman]

I also won a 2011 NSF, but I took another angle at it than most. I'm glad the GREs weren't counted or considered since I did not do well (for an engineer)....yet got in everywhere I applied. Conclusion: GREs don't matter at all.

Anyway. I never did research as an undergrad, and since this coming fall will be my first year as a grad student, I clearly have never done academic research. I won an NSF anyway, based on projects and industry research that I did while working part/full time as an engineering intern. I'm not an academic, I like real practical hands-on projects. I did internships throughout my undergrad because I never intended on going to graduate school; hell, I only applied when I found out I could get paid to do it. My internship experience was purely in research, but not in academic research where publication is the end goal; it was in product research and development (vehicle emissions) where publication is an "if you have time, sure, go publish it" thing.

My research proposal was to continue the work I had begun during my internship and to further investigate why near-zero emissions measurement is limited by a few key factors. This was a valid proposal, but industry and academia are different realms. I spent a while searching for universities and professors that did similar emissions-related research that most importantly would have the required equipment (remember, I won as a senior, so I was not tied to a project or PI). I wrote my application with this school and professor in mind, even though I had never met or spoken to the professor before. NSF awards the fellowships based on your ability to concieve and describe a proper research plan, and NOT on whether or not you even know the prof in question (the prof never sees the application, and NSF doesn't follow up on them). It is very important to make a note of the school and prof (or research lab) you intend to carry out the project with, because NSF is looking to see that you KNOW what equipment you will need to conduct your proposal, even if you never do. This is KEY, as much so as the broader impacts and intellectual merit stuff. I did not end up attending the school I wrote the application around even though I was accepted, and NSF didn't mind. As many posters have said, they award the researcher, not the research.

I'd be happy to share my essays if anyone is interested, they are for Mechanical Engineering. I wanted to let people know that even if you worked through school doing internships and co-ops (and not toiling in a research lab) to pay for undergrad you have equally good chances at winning an NSF. You just have to write it from the perspective of "how does this benefit my chosen industry and the public" rather than "how would this create publications, win me tenure, and affect the public?" Different philosophies, but not any less valid.

[juilletmercredi]

Bimmerman: So you did do research. You simply didn't do *academic* research, but that's not the only kind of research out there. I only point this out because I think it would be close to impossible to get an NSF if you haven't had any research experience, regardless of where you did it. In any case, the NSF isn't solely focused on funding future professors; they want to fund scientists who will contribute to the science and technology workforce.

As for this year's prompts...they are exactly the same every year. There's a personal statement in which you talk about your personal motivations for going into science; a previous research statement in which you discuss your previous research and how it relates to the work you plan to complete in graduate school; and a research proposal/statement in which you propose a project that you intend to carry out as a graduate student ("intend" being loosely defined).

One thing I noticed, as an NSF applicant in psychology, is that it was very difficult to find sample essays in my field or any fields that weren't hardcore STEM fields (engineering, chemistry, math, neuroscience, biology, physics, astronomy, etc.) The only one I had to go on was a previous NSF awardee's in my own department, who let me see her essays and use them as examples. I would do the same for any applicant within my own department/university, so find out if there are any NSF awardees in your department and ask them for advice.

Also, find out if your university has a clearinghouse/website/binder/some kind of place where they host previous years' successful essays. My university is beginning such a website and I've agreed to put my essays up there. I know that they've had this before, it's just never been a website - it was a binder (or series of binders) where they kept examples in hard copy.

I was unsuccessful my first year of graduate school and was awarded the NSF my second year, and I can comment on some of the things I did that I think changed my application:

1. I had a graduate school track record, which I think helped because my cumulative GPA from undergrad was a little low (it was a 3.4). My graduate LOR writers were also more familiar with me and my work; they had actually known me for a full year instead of just like 3 months.

2. In my previous research statement - instead of just listing and briefly describing my past work, I linked it to the work I was doing now. My first project was completely unconnected to anything I'm doing now, but I discussed how it helped me learn how to synthesize information, as well as exactly what research was and how the research process worked. You have to start somewhere, right? My other projects were sort-of related but I made connections where appropriate: for example, I worked on a project analyzing how women coped with discrimination, and I linked it to how I'm now looking at substance use as a deleterious coping method for men that causes risky sexual behavior. In that sense I made my research history look like a stream of consciously connected projects instead of what it actually was (me doing whatever seemed interesting at the time, lol).

3. I'm an African American woman in science, so I kind of touched on that in my personal statement. However, in my original statement I think I wrote about it too much and not about how it actually impacted my role in science. In my second essay, I think I spent about three sentences on it. The experiences I spoke about were

-Growing up in a very socially inequal place (New York) and realizing that I wanted to study the root causes of that social inequality from a scientific perspective, so that science could change it

-The importance of mentorship and role models for all young scientists, but particularly those from groups underrepresented in science.

-What I did about increasing diversity in the science pipeline. I tutored students on the SAT and GRE, volunteered at a predominantly black honors elementary school and gave presentations on going to college and why it's important. I also wrote about how one of my research experiences was in community-based research and how that made me want to do community-based research work that would have a direct impact on communities.

-I also wrote a paragraph on the end about how the NSF could help me reach my goals of doing important research and being a mentor to students interested in science careers. I wrote about how I wanted to teach stats and research methods so that people wouldn't be intimidated by them.

I think those are all topics even someone from not from an underrepresented could write about, since the emphasis was promoting science to the broader community and not just to little black kids. It was more about what I was going to do to impact science, and not just how being a person of color has impacted me.

4. Research proposal was based on a project I had actually been developing with my advisor. I actually inserted a paragraph about how one of my previous research projects was related to this project. That was not in the original one.

Major improvements:

-Most of the space was spent connecting the research to previous work in the field and setting up the theoretical framework. That satisfied the intellectual merit criterion. I spent three paragraphs setting this up. I was advised by a professor that this was very important when she read my previous year's proposal and realized I had not sufficiently connected my work to a theoretical framework. I think this was just good overall advice for grants in general.

-I spent a paragraph on why my project was important - the "broader impact" of the work. What was it going to do for society and for the state of the science? I spent a few sentences commenting on why my relatively innovative methods would contribute to the field.

-I only spent one paragraph discussing the method itself. The year before I think I spent an inordinate amount of time discussing the exact methods when that's not even the most important part. Yes, they want to see that you can set up a realistic project, but they also want to see that you have find a niche in science for yourself and that you know how to find an appropriate topic.

-I spent two short paragraphs discussing why my university and my two advisors were perfect fits for me to execute my work. I aso did not do this in the prior year, and I think this was a big factor, as my evaluators commented on the fit. They want to see that you have support from your university and your PI(s) to do this work.

-I was able to fit all of this and 6 APA-style references into the 2 page limit, with a little room to spare. It can be done! Actually if you know what you're going to say, 2 pages is more than enough. I struggled with the limit in my first year, whereas in my second year I breezed into it.

[Eigen]

Great post, Juliet.

A few things I wanted to mention after seeing you mention them:

Citations- you can put citations in size 10 font. Every little bit helps. Additionally, you don't *have* to use a "known" citation style. I slightly edited the ACS style that is common, to cut down on space a bit. Also, you don't have to delineate your references by line- I did, but I noticed afterwards some other essays that listed them one after another, which saved a few lines.

This may be different between social science and the hard sciences, but I found 2 pages not nearly enough- it took me almost a month to edit down to 2 pages, and by the end I was to the point of an additional word or space pushing me over the limit, and some very creative space saving techniques.

[Bimmerman]

Bimmerman: So you did do research. You simply didn't do *academic* research, but that's not the only kind of research out there. I only point this out because I think it would be close to impossible to get an NSF if you haven't had any research experience, regardless of where you did it. In any case, the NSF isn't solely focused on funding future professors; they want to fund scientists who will contribute to the science and technology workforce.

This is very true. I simply wanted to let folks know that even if you haven't done academic research or anything commonly considered "research" you can still apply. Case in point: I designed spacecraft components and instruments for science-gathering missions and counted that as research. It is all in how you word things and in how you explain things, on the face of it my design experience isn't hard research since there were no publications or any objective aside from get the spacecraft in the air and to have it meet certain requirements. Still was research, and is hardly the only case that would count as research experience in industry. All that matters is that the applicant can explain their role in a project and how they view it as research, and it will help their case.

Great post, Juliet.

A few things I wanted to mention after seeing you mention them:

Citations- you can put citations in size 10 font. Every little bit helps. Additionally, you don't *have* to use a "known" citation style. I slightly edited the ACS style that is common, to cut down on space a bit. Also, you don't have to delineate your references by line- I did, but I noticed afterwards some other essays that listed them one after another, which saved a few lines.

This may be different between social science and the hard sciences, but I found 2 pages not nearly enough- it took me almost a month to edit down to 2 pages, and by the end I was to the point of an additional word or space pushing me over the limit, and some very creative space saving techniques.

I used every trick I knew, 8pt or smaller font for citations, half-spaces (and "8pt" paragraph breaks) between paragraphs, 6-8pt punctuation marks, etc.

A strategy that helped myself and my brother to win the NSF was to clearly mark the paper in sections i.e. BOLD and UNDERLINE the "broader impacts" "intellectual merit" etc things that the readers are looking for. It might sound patronizing to them, but remember that each page is worth ~$50k or more in value to YOU if you win.

[Eigen]

I absolutely agree with clearly delineating the broader impacts and intellectual merit- that's not just something for the NSF fellowship, but true for grant applications as a whole.

Most grant writing workshops teach you to do exactly that- specifically delineate and emphasize the talking points of your grant, and this isn't any different. When you realize that the reviewers are taking about 15 minutes to review your entire application, you want the important stuff to stand out and be easily remembered.

[gellert]

I don't have any tips to add, but as someone who is writing an NSF application this year, I just wanted to say that there are so many fantastic posts in this thread from previous winners. Thank you so much for taking the time to share your experiences and expertise. It's very helpful.

[IRdreams]

I also wanted to mention that in the social sciences the broader impact section can be tricky. In many STEM fields, outreach is specifically expected, but there is no cognate in the social sciences. While the NSF considers advancing science a BI and connecting your work to helping the world is a good choice too, I noticed that reviewers have wild different ideas on this subject. One reviewer wanted to specifically see how I was promoting diversity in political science while others were happy with my activism related to research and my argument about how I advance the field. Considering this disparity between the official policy and reviewer practice, if I were writing again I might try to have at least one of each type of BI in my paper: diversity of the field BI, research BI, and "help the world" BI.

[profoundquiet]

I'm in grad school now, but I have an unfortunate undergrad GPA of 3.3. Is it not even worth applying? I heard most successful applicants have 3.7 or better...

[meankney]

I'm in grad school now, but I have an unfortunate undergrad GPA of 3.3. Is it not even worth applying? I heard most successful applicants have 3.7 or better...

There are many elements that they consider when they review applications. I would say that GPA is the least of them. The most important things are involvement in research and the strength of your proposal/statements. You should definitely still apply!

[Bimmerman]

I also wanted to mention that in the social sciences the broader impact section can be tricky. In many STEM fields, outreach is specifically expected, but there is no cognate in the social sciences. While the NSF considers advancing science a BI and connecting your work to helping the world is a good choice too, I noticed that reviewers have wild different ideas on this subject. One reviewer wanted to specifically see how I was promoting diversity in political science while others were happy with my activism related to research and my argument about how I advance the field. Considering this disparity between the official policy and reviewer practice, if I were writing again I might try to have at least one of each type of BI in my paper: diversity of the field BI, research BI, and "help the world" BI.

Pander to the reviewers. Seriously. If you've ever done a tour or instructed a group of students, and underrepresented/disadvantaged minority students or women are somewhat of the focus of the group, put it in the essay. It's better to have more concrete things that aren't so much of a stretch, but if you don't have anything yet, volunteer for any and all things relating to diversity in your field (school tours/mentoring/tutoring/etc) as possible. Time is running out though.

I'm in grad school now, but I have an unfortunate undergrad GPA of 3.3. Is it not even worth applying? I heard most successful applicants have 3.7 or better...

I don't think NSF ever learned of my GPA.

[juilletmercredi]

I had a 3.4 undergraduate GPA, and I have an NSF. Granted I applied in my second year of graduate school when it didn't matter so much, but even in my first year they didn't comment on it.

They will learn of your GPA, though, because you have to submit your transcripts from undergrad.

[alexhunterlang]

I've been doing my best to collect example essays here. I have found examples in physics, chemistry, neuroscience, environmental science, computer science, economics, synthetic engineering, astronomy, and bioengineering.

If anyone else finds some new ones, let me know.

Or if anyone is willing to share but doesn't have a website, let me know and I can post the essays on mine.

[wait_wait_dont_tell_me]

I'm in grad school now, but I have an unfortunate undergrad GPA of 3.3. Is it not even worth applying? I heard most successful applicants have 3.7 or better...

I applied as an undergrad with a sub 3.0 GPA and I received a fellowship last year. Was I expecting it? No! But there is a lot more that goes into it than grades, believe me, so it can be done.