Doctoral scholarship CRSH/SSHRC 2012

[DMMS18]

I am always amazed when people in their first year of Phd Studies, or going into their first year, write that they have so many or, in fact, any publications. Of course it varies from discipline to discipline, Im in history so it is incredibly difficult to get anything published...

So you guys actually described the breakdown and content of your chapters in proposals? interesting!

Actually, I was very lucky to work with my current supervisor as undergrad and he provided me with the opportunity to be a co-author.

Hopefully this summer I can submit my own research for publication

Edited April 26, 2012 by DMMS18

[checkeredBlanket]

DAAD is not exactly easy to get...I know a few people who had very good proposals and were rejected time and again...when Iapplied three years ago during my MA, all I heard was 'don't worry if you don't get it'..and similar. Noone was expecting a success. Difficulat to say which one is easier to get - DAAD or SSHRC - the only good thing about DAAD is that they don't care much for phD as continuation of MA projects or MA as continuation of BA projects..they even encourage that I'd say.

[NeedFunds]

I think I have a good chance, but who knows. The base rates alone suggest that I do - approximately 75% of people that were forwarded from my school last year were successful. In addition, I have a strong track record with numerous first author publications that vary in prestige, several presentations at international conferences, a very strong program of study in an extremely under researchered area, and exceptional letters of recommendation from two leaders in the field.

[canukulhead]

... my chances? I don’t think any of us has any idea of what are chances are. Yes, we can and do speculate on the weighting of criteria – publications, prior awards, references, proposal, etc etc. – but I think there are just too many vagaries in the selection process to be able to have any idea. I suspect at least part of the selection comes down to a whole bunch of intangibles: what kind of mood the reviewers were in when they happened to get to my application, how many applications they happened to have turned down in the 20 minutes just prior to reviewing mine, the interpersonal dynamic of the group doing the reviews (e.g., one “guy” likes to vote “no” whenever another “guy” votes “yes”,) whether some reviewers like the fact that I’ve been working with a CRC for past couple years (or if they noticed), or other intangibles such as whether they think my school is too small to properly support a PhD CGS. My point is this: we are all qualified … we are all deserving in different ways … we’re all very strong scholars. There are far too many intangible vagaries to have any idea of our chances. Common guys … gimme some lov’in … group cyber hug!!!

[Tacitus14]

Longtime lurker,

Just popping in to say a couple of things 1) a professor from Carleton announced on twitter that his RO (whatever that means.) told him that the results are finalized, but will not be mailed out until next week. Josh Greenburg is his name, I suppose tweetting is his game.

2) To contribute to the publishing..debate (?).. Depending on the field you are in, if you have no publications it is no big deal. In my field the message is clear - no peer reviewed articles in journals (the only ones that matter) before the completion of a thesis - no big deal. No emphasis on publishing until graduation. Completing the degree in 4 years still the number one goal.

3) I agree with the guy who wrote above me on the chances. numbers I've seen on CRSH website tell me 50 / 50.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Tacitus14

[NeedFunds]

I completely agree with you Canukulhead. I think the best predictors for success are the base rates as opposed to the individual application: what percentage of total A-list applicants win, what percentage of forwarded applicants from your school win, what percentage of forwarded applicants for your discipline win, etc. I think these numbers are a lot more informative than judging the merit of a given application.

[CassandraC]

Just curious about the moods on this forum..of course I know one can not forsee whether the application is successful or not, but, without being too pessimistic or too hopeful, what do you believe, are your chances of getting an award this year?

It's hard to say. I was told today my ranking in the department list (which was really great)... but I had ranked high twice before. This is my third time around, waitlisted each of the last two years. Our department forwards 5 applications to the university and every year all five have gone to the national competition - two years ago 3/5 got awards and last year 2/5 got awards. I'm certainly hoping I have good luck this time around but I've learned it's a a bit of a game of chance. My references have always been solid and my project is closely tied with a larger project with my supervisor, but this application I had a conference presentation, a consultancy with a big deal organization in my field, a co-authored work with my supervisor plus a few minor publications in student journals, and part of my fieldwork finished. But last year my partner got one going into his first year of PhD, with no conferences, no publications, etc (imagine being in our house that day...). I've never been able to figure out what makes them want you and what turns them off.

[DMMS18]

Longtime lurker,

Just popping in to say a couple of things 1) a professor from Carleton announced on twitter that his RO (whatever that means.) told him that the results are finalized, but will not be mailed out until next week. Josh Greenburg is his name, I suppose tweetting is his game.

I wonder if this prof is referring to the Doctoral Competition... I know our supervisors are also waiting to hear back about their competitions...

[NeedFunds]

I wonder if this prof is referring to the Doctoral Competition... I know our supervisors are also waiting to hear back about their competitions...

I think so - I was speaking with a group of professors the other day that notified me that they expected to hear by Friday.

[Tacitus14]

Yeah, no doubt. I heard that from my super. too. Hard to say. http://twitter.com/#...sshrc%20results

He cced it to a professor, a counselor and a student organisation, or so it appears to me. I think he's speaking of the results we're waiting for.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Tacitus14

[DMMS18]

Yeah, no doubt. I heard that from my super. too. Hard to say. http://twitter.com/#...sshrc%20results

He cced it to a professor, a counselor and a student organisation, or so it appears to me. I think he's speaking of the results we're waiting for.

Sweet..

I don't think my department releases results to students though... so I will be waiting to receive my letter. Unfortunately, my letter is being mailed to my parents' house so I need to stop by their place before I find anything out!! When I asked my mom my results on the GRE she totally messed them up so I don't trust to ask her for SSHRC results

Edited April 26, 2012 by DMMS18

[Dakon]

Decaf, I understand all too well. I was thinking of getting the results mailed to my parents, but I decided the extra day or two would be less stressful to see the document with my own eyes.

[puddle]

Yeah, no doubt. I heard that from my super. too. Hard to say. http://twitter.com/#...sshrc%20results

He cced it to a professor, a counselor and a student organisation, or so it appears to me. I think he's speaking of the results we're waiting for.

This is not about the grant funding... I only know this because my thesis sup. is sitting on that committee and is not leaving for the E. Coast until tomorrow (so they would not have finalized decisions yet)... good news then, eh? Looks like people will start finding out next week or the week after that.

On the other hand... yikes! Come on SSHRC... I need a nest egg!

[Ziz]

I think my chances are pretty good but I don't want to jinx myself. I really have no clue what goes into making a good application since I've never gone to grad school in Canada and worked with a supervisor who's familiar with the process. But judging from the percentages, it looks like those who have applied in the UK (and have been forwarded) have gotten an award 75% of the time. So that's good news...I have a good academic record, no publications (normal in my field and it would actually be a detriment to have a publication at this point), a couple of conferences, etc. So nothing special.

[oxforddphil]

For what it's worth, my understanding--from speaking to people involved in the selection process in the past--is that the proposal is far and away the most important part of the application, based on the weighting scheme they use.

In any event, as a general matter, virtually everyone will have a GPA in the right range (north of A-, assuming your uni has such a grade), and unlike in the natural sciences, it's normal to have few (if any) publications at this point (although if you have them, great!). Some people will wind up getting short-changed by their referees, but most will have solid references. (Having had to select people myself in an 'elite' context, I can say with some confidence that a bad reference can hurt you, but good references are standard and will never set you apart, no matter how florid they are). So the only way for people to distinguish themselves is the proposal and the CV. In my view, the CV is not likely to be a big factor for most people. A few, like me, might have relevant work experience or some teaching under their belt, but it's probably not common enough to affect the overall balance of awards.

So, everyone should stop freaking out about publications! Though if your proposal was crap, worry... :-(

Edited April 26, 2012 by oxforddphil

[NeedFunds]

I don't think that teaching will have much influence anyway given that the purpose of these awards is to fund promising researchers. Of course, teaching is a nice component to add to a total package but I certainly do not think it will have as much of an impact as publications. I imagine 1 publication in a mediocre peer reviewed journal would be more beneficial to an applicants CV than teaching experience given that this is a scholarship awarded to promote research not teaching.

[Interferenceviolet]

I think Oxforddphil is right. Publications aren't the be all and end all. One of my classmates last year got a CGS and I know that he had no publications, no conferences, no teaching. His references would have been very good, but not rockstars in his field. He did however have a Masters SSHRC, and an absolutely stellar proposal that he worked on for about six months. And I'm pretty sure that's what got him the big bucks.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Interferenceviolet

[NeedFunds]

I think Oxforddphil is right. Publications aren't the be all and end all. One of my classmates last year got a CGS and I know that he had no publications, no conferences, no teaching. His references would have been very good, but not rockstars in his field. He did however have a Masters SSHRC, and an absolutely stellar proposal that he worked on for about six months. And I'm pretty sure that's what got him the big bucks.

I am not quite swayed by your fallacious reasoning (see affirming the consequent). Your example would be much more persuasive if you provided me with an example of a student who had a stellar publication record and was not successful. Of course it is not necessary to have publications to win the award as the vast majority of individuals applying for a SSHRC probably do not have any publications. And, if an individual does have a few publications and a terrible plan of study, he or she probably would not and should not win a SSHRC; however, if the plan of study was horrible, that person probably would not be A-list anyway. I agree - the program of study is probably the most important part of an application; however, there are several strong programs submitted and publications definitely provide solid evidence of research potential. It is one thing to plan a course of study and quite another to execute a plan of study and publish your findings. If I were funding students, I would definitely be encouraged to fund those who have publications as they have already established that they can bring the research process full circle.

[Dakon]

I think publications do play an important role, but I know that they do not expect students - especially does just beginning a PhD - to have a considerable amount. I think they are more concerned with finding serious students committed to their research and who can prove themselves capable of independent, original thinking; and, naturally, research contributions can certainly be an indicator of that. Naturally it will depend on the field - but at any rate a student with three solid article publications, a book chapter, or what not, probably will have an easy job convincing them of their abilities. At any rate, academics are expected to produce knowledge. In short, though they can be important, I don't think they expect the impossible.

Naturally, it does depend on the proposal. If the proposed research is not going in a good direction, then it either meant that the person was too lazy to write something comprehensible, too confident in their own abilities to actually think it was necessary to convince those evaluating his or her file, or perhaps just picked a topic that is not considered worthwhile or is already overdone by bad chance. One of my old professors takes part in (or at least did) the committee of selection and he told me once that one year they turned down what should have been one of the best candidates. The guy had a near perfect track record, a lot of publications, was going to a prestigious university, already had relatively important research contributions in journals, etc., but the research proposal just talked about him- or herself and his or her past accomplishments and smacked of arrogance.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Dakon

[oxforddphil]

@NeedFunds: Of course publications will help. There's no question. But my understanding is that the evaluators are required to use a standard marking scheme, with a fixed proportion of the marks for each element of the application. I can't recall the exact weight of it anymore, but my understanding is that the proposal makes up a huge chunk of the overall score. Given that most people who make it to the A-list have comparable grades and CV's, what will determine (in most cases) whether a person gets it is the strength of their proposal (relative to everyone else's). This isn't because of some holistic grading philosophy about what a good proposal does or doesn't indicate a person's research potential*, it's simply baked into the mathematical cake that the evaluators are forced to use.

*Obviously, the fact that SSHRC assigns so much weight to the proposal is the product of such a philosophy. But evaluators are not engaging in a case-by-case subjective evaluation of the candidates' research potential.

[NeedFunds]

Without getting into a large discussion on latent structures, suffice it to say that whether the committee is checking off a box that says research potential or not does not matter - they are at some level, evaluating research potential. Evaluating a proposal to a certain degree is evaluating research potential. If you look at the department and referee forms it is apparent that one large component of what they are assessing is research potential. Certainly publications fit into this assessment. And, I do not expect that the process is "mathematical". Filling out a few likert scales might increase objectivity and ease the process by quantifying evaluations, but I think it is a little much to call this mathematical - you've marked before, you know that assessments are far from "mathematical". Anyway, I will not be partaking in discussion on this topic any further because quite frankly, it is beginning to bore me. Furthermore, I find it pointless to argue with those who misrepresent what I say - there is an abundance of individuals committing straw men on this forum. Best luck to all! Hopefully the results come out soon, so this silly discussion can be put to an end.

[oxforddphil]

That was a very weird post.

Anyway, my point is simply that the evaluators do not have the discretion to give preference to publications over the proposal even if they think the former demonstrate strong research potential. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that out of a total score of 30, the proposal is worth 10 points, and publications are worth two. Even if you 'max out' on the available points for publications, you still only get two points, no matter how strong the committee things that aspect of your application is.

Obviously every single element of the scoring system is aimed at assessing a person's research potential. However, what I was given to understand, and what I trying to communicate here, is that the evaluators are not free to determine what 'counts' towards that assessment, or how much it counts. Yes, there is going to be an element of subjective judgment involved, but I never claimed there wouldn't be, merely that the weighting of various factors is not left up to the judgment of individual evaluators.

[cathaea]

I think these kinds of discussions are really field-specific. I know in English, it's super uncommon to have pubs before your 2nd year but if you were applying for a SSHRC going into your 4th year, for instance, there would be a slightly higher expectation that you maybe have 1-2 published/forthcoming articles. That being said, I'm in a discipline that is still very much focused on finishing on time and avoiding everything that has the potential to distract from that and lots of people avoid writing articles to focus on their dissertation. I think publications are helpful across the board, certainly, but there are many students who get SSHRC without them, many fields in which pubs are far less common and it's obviously not the only measure of research potential.

[Interferenceviolet]

Good Lord, Needfunds. All I said was that it's possible to get a CGS without publications if your proposal is strong enough. Nothing more, nothing less. So, enough with your pretentious and condescending attitude.

[oxforddphil]

@cathaea: You're probably correct. My understanding is that SSHRC has a quota for each year of the PhD, meaning that 1st years only compete with other 1st years, while 4th years only compete against each other.

Edited April 27, 2012 by oxforddphil