NSF GRFP 2012-2013

[rockbender]

Thanks guttata, I will probably end up doing that...

Re: delaying until the last minute, I actually wasn't planning on applying for the fellowship this year, but all of the POIs that I contacted told me that I should. The sense I got was that I needed to at least apply to be strongly considered. Now I am scrambling to put something together in 3 weeks. Alas.

By good I mean something I won't be embarrassed about. I don't expect it to be good enough to win a fellowship given the scramble. I'm also not worried about getting edits; I have at least 6 people who have offered to edit it once I can put together a draft. I'm just stuck at the draft part...

[dendy]

Would I get extra "points" for talking about being underrepresented in my personal statement, like from a rural area or a very low income background, or would they care more about outreach I have done for these groups?

[vertices]

Would I get extra "points" for talking about being underrepresented in my personal statement, like from a rural area or a very low income background, or would they care more about outreach I have done for these groups?

Outreach makes the stronger application. They're looking for people who will become leaders that not only do great science, but have a strong impact on the world. You might want to touch on your situation in your personal statement as motivation for your outreach activities and explain how your experiences aid your ability to address the unique concerns of these underrepresented groups.

In this article ( http://www.phy.david...SFGRFfinal.html ) on the Broader impact criterion, veteran reviewers write "“Potential contributions to diversity” refer to increasing the diversity of the US population entering science or knowledgeable about it, not to increasing the diversity of the applicant’s scientific or other interests (an unfortunate but recurring misunderstanding). Helping one or two minority or female fellow-students after class hardly constitutes real distinction here, and being a minority applicant does not automatically fulfill this criterion. The panel looks for impact—e.g., taking science to underrepresented groups in the population through work with public or independent schools, club activity, college- or university-based programs, or summer work. Initiating science activity and effective advocacy for science education are highly valued. A minority applicant might not only engage in such activity but also, through it, serve as a role model to attract others toward scientific interests. Likewise, “contributions to community” may include organizing or working with department-based initiatives, with science museums, or with students through independent programs. Applicants and their mentors should think in terms of making a real difference in the lives of others."

Edited October 27, 2012 by vertices

[InquilineKea]

Thanks for all the answers, guttata! Yeah - about the 810 Biology GRE - it's not essential, but from what I've seen out of reviewer comments, a number of reviewers really seem to be impressed with interdisciplinarity in applicants.. (but again, there is always a balance that must be made between interdisciplinarity and focus).

==

I have another question for anyone to answer: Does the application require professors to fill out checkboxes comparing the applicants to other applicants the professor has seen? (sort of like what is done in grad admissions).

Also, are NSF applications expected to have a more serious "tone" than grad-school application essays? Or is it okay to contain a little humor in one's essays?

Edited October 27, 2012 by InquilineKea

[guttata]

Also, are NSF applications expected to have a more serious "tone" than grad-school application essays? Or is it okay to contain a little humor in one's essays?

You're trying to make yourself stand out. If you can sneak in a little humor, it's a good way to get yourself remembered. I think I have a story in mine about my advisor landing butt-first on a cactus and I think i remember a winner from last year saying they opened with a really corny joke on either their PS or PR essays.

[eponine997]

This may be more appropriate for the admissions-related forums but does anyone have any knowledge or experience of admissions committees reversing their decision (to reject an applicant) after the applicant was awarded the NSF GRF?

I've heard of this happening at Stanford, though it probably also depends on the department (in this case it was social science). Based on where else the applicant was accepted, she was more than qualified to attend. And I know we've all heard that grad schools can form several classes of highly qualified applicants from the huge pool of applications they receive in a given year. I'm just curious if anyone knows of cases at any other schools.

[InquilineKea]

Okay... So here's a question: Does it count as outreach to females if I made extra efforts to loan out my science/math textbooks to several women, gave them many of the STEM-based resources I used, recommended STEM courses for them to take (some of them that they eventually took), and even discussed potential research groups for them? (I also got one recruited to a certain lab). I really encouraged one of them to apply for PhD programs as well, and sent her all the information she was willing to receive.

Also, does it count if, say, I recruited a female to a lab in a field that's totally unrelated to the field I'm in?

[snowblossom2]

This may be more appropriate for the admissions-related forums but does anyone have any knowledge or experience of admissions committees reversing their decision (to reject an applicant) after the applicant was awarded the NSF GRF?

I don't understand this question. Why anyone would a) reverse their decision in the first place or esp after being awarded the NSF GRF. I've heard that if you get awarded you may get a rejection changed to admission but NEVER the other way around. Why would anyone do that?

[guttata]

Okay... So here's a question: Does it count as outreach to females if I made extra efforts to loan out my science/math textbooks to several women, gave them many of the STEM-based resources I used, recommended STEM courses for them to take (some of them that they eventually took), and even discussed potential research groups for them? (I also got one recruited to a certain lab). I really encouraged one of them to apply for PhD programs as well, and sent her all the information she was willing to receive.

Also, does it count if, say, I recruited a female to a lab in a field that's totally unrelated to the field I'm in?

That doesn't sound like broader-impacts stuff. Loaning textbooks? Course recommendations? Come on. If thats what you're basing your application on, you need some work. Assisted in recruitment to a lab, MAYBE, but really, the idea is how your activities and your research are helping.

[guttata]

This may be more appropriate for the admissions-related forums but does anyone have any knowledge or experience of admissions committees reversing their decision (to reject an applicant) after the applicant was awarded the NSF GRF?

I've heard of this happening at Stanford, though it probably also depends on the department (in this case it was social science). Based on where else the applicant was accepted, she was more than qualified to attend. And I know we've all heard that grad schools can form several classes of highly qualified applicants from the huge pool of applications they receive in a given year. I'm just curious if anyone knows of cases at any other schools.

+1 to snowblossom's reply. There's no way anyone had an acceptance reversed after being awarded the GRF. What IS possible is that they waited too long, passed their acceptance deadline, and were then rejected despite holding a GRF offer. Either you misunderstood, or they misrepresented their story.

I have heard of several cases of a quick, "Hey, i got the GRF" phone call resulting in a magic acceptance letter appearing, however.

[Eigen]

I think it's better to leave off things that are too much of a stretch, honestly- it's like with things that are obviously stretched on a CV- they make people look askance at the whole thing.

When NSF is talking about outreach, it's talking about things like going out to minority schools and working with science clubs, doing demonstrations, after school tutoring, etc. Or working over the summer to get minority high-school students a chance to work with you in the lab, or helping provide lab facilities for science fair projects, or working with local schools to arrange tours of the department/university and lab spaces for interested high school applicants.

Obviously, some of these things are easier in grad school than not, but I probably do fewer hours of science outreach now than I did as an undergrad, albeit I can have a bit wider impact now.

Loaning textbooks and informal mentoring is really a stretch, imo.

[SensLu]

What about outreach of the form of working in a lab and helping, mentoring undergraduates? That's obviously a form of teaching though not as explicit as literally going out to the schools but it's a form of teaching nonetheless. Leading projects where you have lead undergrads may be something to through in there.

I agree, loaning textbooks and simply saying you've suggested people should apply to grad programs or take classes would be a stretch and if it was me, I wouldn't even feel comfortable saying that in an essay where you probably have other skills that are better worth explaining. Honestly, there has to be something other that loaning textbooks and suggesting courses that you've done.

[Eigen]

Mentoring undergrads is absolutely important- I didn't mention it because it's not as common of an experience.

My lab works very hierarchically, so I've had several undergrads work for me over the last few years, and it's certainly something I mentioned in my application- as well as conferences I've taken them to, etc.

[eponine997]

+1 to snowblossom's reply. There's no way anyone had an acceptance reversed after being awarded the GRF. What IS possible is that they waited too long, passed their acceptance deadline, and were then rejected despite holding a GRF offer. Either you misunderstood, or they misrepresented their story.

I have heard of several cases of a quick, "Hey, i got the GRF" phone call resulting in a magic acceptance letter appearing, however.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. They reversed their decision to reject, rather than reversed their decision to admit.

I'm curious if you know of this happening in specific programs or at specific schools. I have seen on some admissions pages "decisions are final," "having [external] funding won't help you," etc. which implies they will not reverse a rejection. I'm wondering which admissions approach is more typical.

[InquilineKea]

Okay thanks for the replies, everyone. Yeah - it probably is a stretch then.

Regarding how applying for NSF funding interacts with grad admissions: how would checking the box "are you applying for external funding?" on grad apps affect your chances of getting into the grad programs?

It might also depend on the type of program and whether admissions is done by a committee or whether it is done by whether or not there's a professor willing to take on students. Committee-like admissions is common in physics/math departments, while the "professor willing to take students on" is more common in earth science and biology departments.

[guttata]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. They reversed their decision to reject, rather than reversed their decision to admit.

I'm curious if you know of this happening in specific programs or at specific schools. I have seen on some admissions pages "decisions are final," "having [external] funding won't help you," etc. which implies they will not reverse a rejection. I'm wondering which admissions approach is more typical.

Yes, I know of several specific programs that have done it and a couple schools that I was rejected from last year actually told me they would reverse their decision if I got the GRF when I called to check on my status. All of my experience is with biology programs, but I'd rather not call out the specific programs.

You'll find that the official policy at almost every school says "decisions are final" or "external funding won't influence decisions" because they have to. The NSF says they don't want winning the GRF to get someone in to school. In practice, most schools don't follow their "official" policy

[InquilineKea]

Do you have to put your name and a title on top of each essay? Is it a good idea to do it? Or is it okay not to do it?

Also, do LORs have to be a maximum length or not? Are most strong LORs 2 pages in length?

Also, for the question below

Graduate Courses Information

*Have you COMPLETED any graduate courses at this educational institution?

Do I have to list courses if I took them as an undergrad if they don't count towards grad work? And what if I took grad-lvl courses in a wide variety of different departments?

Edited October 28, 2012 by InquilineKea

[guttata]

Do you have to put your name and a title on top of each essay? Is it a good idea to do it? Or is it okay not to do it?

No. Why would you? All it does is take up space for your essay and as the essays all have separate upload spaces, I'm guessing when things are printed or parsed out for the reviewers all the necessary information is included by the system. If you're talking about putting things in the margin, then its a terrible idea to do it, because it will get you automatically disqualified for using more than your 1 inch margin allowed space.

Also, do LORs have to be a maximum length or not? Are most strong LORs 2 pages in length?

The LORs are not your concern. You should ask your writers if they can/are willing to write you a strong letter, perhaps discuss a few things that they should include, and then let them do their job. Demanding that they write you a 2 page letter isn't going to win you any favors.

*Have you COMPLETED any graduate courses at this educational institution?

Do I have to list courses if I took them as an undergrad if they don't count towards grad work? And what if I took grad-lvl courses in a wide variety of different departments?

Were these courses strictly graduate courses? At my current school, if there's a class that grads and undergrads take together, there's a 4000 version for registration for undergrads and a 6000 registration for grads, even though they're in the same classroom. In that case, no, you wouldn't list anything. The way you're talking about things (since you say they don't count for grad work) makes me think this is similar for your case.

Edit: After re-reading, no, you shouldn't include those classes because they weren't going toward a graduate degree. Didn't you already ask this question in this thread????

Edited October 28, 2012 by guttata

[rockbender]

What exactly are they looking for under "Proposed Program" (after putting in the proposed university)? Do I just say a "Doctoral Program"? or "PhD Program in Whatever"?

I am confused because below they ask for the Graduate Department and the Highest Degree that you expect to earn, so the "Proposed Program" question seems redundant.

Am I missing something here?

[SensLu]

Really annoying, haven't heard back from one letter writer. I was already a bit worried about asking because she only has a master's degree yet was my supervisor on a major project and that was my latest employment experience outside of my undergraduate university. I also am not sure she's even reliable as a reference because the nature of her job isn't a typical 9-5 in the office or stable like a professor.

Is it better to have people with Master's degrees or all professors who wrote strong letters of recs in the past?

I have a feeling that with my lower GPA that having all professors that know me extremely well and know my GPA isn't indicative of what I can do in grad school might be the better option anyways. I just don't want to raise any flags by not having a letter writer from my most recent research experience.

[JChem]

Hi there. This year's my last chance to apply for the GRFP. My undergrad GPA is at ~3.88 in chemical engineering, which I feel pretty good about. I gained admission to a pretty good graduate program, but wasn't prepared for the jump in difficulty. My graduate school GPA tanked quite a bit, and while it's improving, it's still at 3.29 right now. Do you know if this will affect my chances to get the fellowship?

I was thinking of simply appending an enrollment verification that shows me being registered throughout the last year in the PhD program, but the instruction states that I need a transcript from every institution I list.

Your recommendations would be highly appreciated.

[guttata]

Hi there. This year's my last chance to apply for the GRFP. My undergrad GPA is at ~3.88 in chemical engineering, which I feel pretty good about. I gained admission to a pretty good graduate program, but wasn't prepared for the jump in difficulty. My graduate school GPA tanked quite a bit, and while it's improving, it's still at 3.29 right now. Do you know if this will affect my chances to get the fellowship?

I was thinking of simply appending an enrollment verification that shows me being registered throughout the last year in the PhD program, but the instruction states that I need a transcript from every institution I list.

Your recommendations would be highly appreciated.

I'm using an enrollment verification because as a first year student, my transcript won't have anything extra on it. A winner from my lab used this last year during his first year. What you're describing is deliberately hiding information, and I doubt that they'll accept a simple enrollment verification if you've completed an entire year.

My recommendation is to use your real transcript.

[JChem]

I know. My biger concern is how much importance they place in graduate school class grades. I already have a conference presentation and publication, and was hoping that my research would be weighed more heavily than simple grades. In the end, I did pass and am above the GPA threshold for graduation.

[Eigen]

The research will be weighted more heavily than the grades.

The problem will be that there are likely people out there with good research, presentations, publications and good grades.

It's one of the answers to a lot of the questions on the board- getting into grad school, or getting external funding, aren't things for which there are bars that need to be overcome, or for which some things completely outweigh the others. It's inherently competitive, and you don't need to worry about people who have one "part" and not the others, but rather someone who has all of the necessary "parts".

[JChem]

Wait, so graduate school classes are actually important, beyond passing? The entire point of graduate school and a PhD program is to do good research, isn't it? Some advisors even discourage taking classes beyond the introductory classes...

I'm not sure how closely they'll look at the transcript itself, as the most recent set of grades is a 4.0. They do realize the graduate school cumulative GPA will be barely based on a single year so far, right?