NSF GRFP 2012-2013

[spivak_khayesh]

Got HM. VG/E, VG/E, E/G.

 

Congratulations to all who got it, to all HMs, and to all who applied. It has been a pleasure to travel with all of you on this learning journey. Bless.

Edited March 30, 2013 by spivak_khayesh

[contazia]

First time applying. I'm a first year in a grad program, but was counted as a second year because I technically took a graduate level course after I graduated college. It's a bummer since I can't apply again and was compared against second year students. 

 

E/VG -- literally no criticism in my VG rating, not sure why this wasn't an E

VG/E-- IM: positives: "considerable research experience", "strong letters", "solid research plans", lots of presentations; negatives: no journal pubs (no one in my field does at this stage, but whatevs); also my "previous research essay lacks detail on specific methods performed and skills acquired", which isn't true, but I guess I could have made them more obvious?

VG/VG -- IM: good amount of research experience and presentations, impressive commitment to my work, they like my research project and my letters demonstrate its importance--only quibble is a couple of terms were unclear; BI: Another head-scratcher; no criticism and everything was very positive (impressive, well-articulated, significant potential, broad communication ability)

 

I got HM--there was only 1 fellowship awarded in my sub field, though I do realize you're judged vs. the whole primary field. Other than a couple of minor changes, it sounds like I did pretty well with my application, so I have no regrets. $30,000 would have been nice though  

 

It is weird to get VG ratings when they clearly were happy with my work. Maybe I had to get downgraded because of a competitive field? 

[jaxzwolf]

Got one! This was my FOURTH time applying, and my last year of eligibility, since I'm a second-year grad student. Here's how all four of my applications played out:

 

2010: Just out of undergrad. Applied for kicks. VG/G, VG/G, VG/F. Honorable mention.

 

2011: Second gap year. One of my references didn't submit an application on time, and my proposal was not reviewed.

 

2012: First year of grad school. E/VG, E/G, E/E. Honorable mention. I was really disappointed about this one. Thought I had it!

 

2013: Second year of grad school. E/E, E/VG, E/E. Award offered.

 

Phew! I'm so relieved! My graduate department only offers funding through the first two years of the program, so I was sunk for next year if I didn't get this. Very grateful and excited. Congrats to all the other awardees, and those who recevied honorable mentions (although I understand from personal experience how frustrating it is to receive one, and not an actual award).

 

For those of you that didn't get one and will still be eligible next year, keep trying! It took me four rounds...Blarg.

 

Mostly I'm just happy I won't have to apply again next year!

[anthroapp11]

Offered Award! I thought I'd offer a couple of tips, especially for anyone who may be perusing this board hoping to apply in the future:

 

If you are in a field where it is extremely rare to have publications early in your grad career (for example, almost everything is single authored in anthropology, and based on extensive fieldwork we do later in our grad career), be sure to present research at conferences, submit papers for awards, try to get things published on blogs, etc. If you're prepping to apply for the GRFP, dust off any research papers you've written  in the past and get them presented/read/submitted somewhere! There are lots of undergraduate paper competitions through AAA, ASA, etc. that no one really knows about. Smaller regional conferences are a supportive, non-intimidating way to get your work out there. And that stuff counts for the GRFP!

 

A hypothesis is totally necessary, even for fields like Anthro where that's not usually done. A contingency plan if your hypothesis is totally wrong = better. I expect to go to the field and find _______. If that is not the case, I plan to ___________. Either way, my project will answer this question:___________. From what I understand, they like this because they know even if your plan is an utter failure, the NSF will still not be wasting its money because you're going to re-route the project and it's still going to be great.

 

Broader impacts is so, so important. Multiple reviewers mentioned my past experience/future work with marginalized populations. In the future, I argued that my research will benefit these marginalized groups, and also that I will be working directly with those populations during the research process. Involve non-scientists IN your research if possible! Make a connection to education.

 

My advisor is an NSF reviewer. In the project proposal, she recommends one section for Broader Impacts and one section for Intellectual Merit. Don't think that either of these things will be implied by the rest of your proposal! You need to dedicate specific paragraphs to these things. In the Personal STatement, don't mention things you've done in your past without tying each one to BI and/or IM. Example: I volunteered at _______ place, which had the broader impact of reaching ____ group with scientific awesomeness.

 

Argue that your planned/current graduate program is the correct place for you to be-- this can be done by your recommenders, and/or in your personal statement. You don't have to re-hash your entire application or grad school or mention specific profs, just argue there are programs/resources/centers/labs that you need. One reviewer said he was confident about the success of my research based upon the program's fit for me.

 

Tell your letter writers they should be addressing BI and IM in their letters, and provide them with resources to know what exactly that means.

 

NUMBERS. Bullet points. Sub-titles and sections (Introduction/Context, Hypothesis, Methods, etc). Formatting is crucial to make your statement easy to read and remember. Again, this is something Anthro does not do a whole lot of, but the NSF loooooves it. Example: Personal statement: (this could be in your intro paragraph) I am prepared to do amazing research for three reasons: 1) I have a strong academic background, 2) I have a commitment to working with X population, as demonstrated through past research and volunteer experience, 3) my current grad program provides me with the resources to be successful. Research statement: This project has several broader impacts that will affect X population or Y body of knowledge: (a) __. Specifically, I will_____. (____ ©____.

 

The cookie-cutterness may be a turn-off for the social and interperative sciences, but you must must speak NSF's language to have any chance at an award.

[woodenspoon]

E/E

VG/VG

E/VG

 

Awarded as a second year graduate student.

 

I applied last year and didn't get anything despite unanimously positive reviews (2 Es, 4 VGs). I just wanted to add my voice to the list of people saying not to get discouraged if you don't get anything the first time around.

[Matba]

HM...again. I'm a second year, so this is it. 

 

It took a couple of days to shake it off and be able to accept it. So, I finally made it to Grad Cafe and I just want to say that I'm genuinely happy for all of you who got offered the award! Thanks for all the tips and keeping my sanity through this anxious process. 

 

This time:

 

G/E

VG/E

G/E 

 

They all got stuck on my 3.2 undergrad GPA. I also got HM last year because of "less than stellar" undergraduate record, so this year I made a big deal about and had my PI comment on how my undergrad grades are not reflective of my potential but I think I might have planted too big of a red flag on it, since this time around they all commented on it. So for those of you who still have a shot, be subtle. If the reviewer thinks your GPA sucks, he can find the few sentences where you described how you've overcame your low grades, but if they don't notice it ... make sure it's not everywhere. 

 

On the plus side, I'm now Honorable Honorable matba or Twice Honorable matba (I like the last one more I think). 

[rbbennet]

E/VG

VG/E

E/VG

Awarded a fellowship as a 4th year undergraduate. 

[Queen of Kale]

I got an HM but was not as bummed as I expected.  All my reviews were super nice.  I think the most telling reviewer was the second who wrote both "other applicants

have had more compelling references in terms of demonstrating the potential of the applicant." and "the applicant is strongly encouraged to apply again if not successful this round."  Congrats to all the awardees and HMers and hugs to everyone else.  Funding is a crap shoot but everyone deserves a round of applause for applying, especially second and third year applicants.

 

VG/VG

VG/E

VG/E

[kate25]

E/E

E/E

E/VG

 

Fellowship awarded. This is my second year applying - last year as an undergrad I got HM. I think what made the difference for me was publications; last year I had none, this year I had two.

 

Congratulations to all the fellows and HMers!

[lizziek]

Here are my scores:

 

E/E

E/VG

E/VG

Honorable Mention

 

This is my first year applying, but I am a second year graduate student so no more chances for me!

 

Does anyone have an idea about how many awardees accept the fellowship? (i.e. how many HM's are up-graded to award?) I know a couple of people over the past years who received HMs and ended up getting the award because some awardees declined, but I have no clue how common that is!

[vertices]

Does anyone have an idea about how many awardees accept the fellowship? (i.e. how many HM's are up-graded to award?) I know a couple of people over the past years who received HMs and ended up getting the award because some awardees declined, but I have no clue how common that is!

 

If you look at the number of awardees for the past three years on fastlane, there are 2,067 for 2012; 2,077 for 2011; and 2,051 for 2010. There are exactly 2,000 awarded for 2013 right now. Based on this I would guess approximately 50 to 80 HMs are upgraded due to other people declining.

[vertices]

Their website says "The NSF accords Honorable Mention to meritorious applicants who do not receive Fellowship awards. This is considered a significant national academic achievement and provides access to cyberinfrastructure resources through the XSEDE. Please refer to http://www.xsede.org for more information on cyberinfrastructure resources."  

I don't know what XSEDE is...?

 

Summarizing briefly, XSEDE is a program/system that gives access to computing, storage and software resources through a unified, trying-to-be-friendly interface with existing support staff. If you have a project that could benefit from having a computer program run on dedicated or parallel machines, you could use the XSEDE resources. If you need storage space for your data, you may be able to obtain space. That's a very short version. If it sounds right for you, check out the site under 'Resources'.

 

My understanding is that being awarded or offered HM gives you the ability to write proposals for XSEDE resources on your own, whereas other students would have to ask their advisor or a post-doc at their organization.

[sdt13]

I received an HM and my application was for STEM education. 

 

VG/VG

F/G

E/E

 

I was rather surprised by my reviews, as two were stellar (except the VG came from the fact that I wasn't personal enough in my application) and one totally contradicted what the others said. I mean, two said things along the lines like "this is a coherent set of studies", "the research proposal itself is by definition impacting society and the STEM areas",  "The applicant presents an excellent case for broader impacts".

 

Then the F/G reviewer stated: "The lack of clarity raises issues about the applicant’s ability to assess the feasibility of her research. The applicant needs to strengthen her broader impacts section."

 

I don't get it... 

 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2013 by sdt13

[hobokennojokin]

What exactly does the "HM upgrade" process look like? You just get an email saying you've been upgraded? What an amazing feeling that must be..

[apisregina]

Final stats from the 2013 NSF GRFP: just under 1 out of 3 applicants received an award or honorable mention.
 

13,000 applicants

2,000 awards (~15.4%)

1,762 honorable mentions (another 13.6%)

 

Congratulations to the award winners, and better luck next time (if there is a next time!) for the rest of us!

[buffalowizard]

Actually only 1809 honorable mentions; 1762 is the number of honorable mention recipients who don't object to being listed as such on FastLane.

[joylime]

2nd year graduate student, 2nd time applicant in Evolutionary Biology

 

I got VG/E VG/E and I didn't even get a third reviewer, which is ridiculously frustrating. Any ideas why I wouldn't get a third reviewer with these "scores"? Is it because they agreed? I know someone else (same field) who got E/VG VG/E and got a third reviewer (and went on to get honorable mention).

 

Grr.

[Scrabble2]

Many of these types of questions (why some students got further/were awarded despite lower scores) may be explained by the z scores of reviewers. Essentially, the z score is meant to take into consideration that some reviewers may be "tougher" graders that give out fewer excellent scores than other reviewers. Or, some reviewers may be "easier" graders that give out more excellent scores than other reviewers. To try and take this type of subjectivity into account, a few years ago (I believe) NSF started calculating z scores.

 

From http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~whitmir/Whitmire_Research_Group/NSF_Graduate_Research_Fellowship_Notes_files/NSF%20GRFP%20Presentation.pdf

 

 

Each application is read by two panelists. As an example, there have been on the order of 250 - 300 applications for the Chemistry 1 panel 

for the each of the past five years. 

 

• Each panelist gives an application two scores based upon (1) intellectual merit and (2) broader impacts, with the total rating adding to 50. 

• The mean and standard deviation for the scores given by each panelist are computed to correct for differences in the way panelists rate proposals. The raw scores are converted to Z values and the averages of the Z values are calculated for each applicant. 

• After 2 reads, the applications are ranked by average Z score, and the bottom is triaged (about 60% usually - number is set by NSF based upon how many applications they are likely to fund or award an honorable mention) 

• After triage, each application that is left in the pool receives a third read. 

 

Sorry your application didn't proceed further. I was fortunate to win the award--but it took a fourth reviewer to resolve a discrepancy as my third reviewer only gave me an F/F. I think that shows how subjective this process can be, as I had 3 reviewers who loved the application and one who clearly disliked it. If that third reviewer had been my second, I probably wouldn't have made it to a third review.

[newpsyche]

I'm late joining the NSF party, but I GOT IT! Psychology still has hope in the STEM fields! First year applying, E/E E/E VG/VG. I'll probably write a page and submit it...somewhere online(?) with advice as to how to apply to maximize your chances.

[ChoCho]

I got it too with E/E E/E E/E Never would have expected this as I only had 1.5 weeks of preparation, including getting the recommendations X_X.

What is funny is that in the reviews, it is clear that the reviewers misunderstood some parts. Nothing major, but still shows that they aren't as thorough as they maybe should be.

[nnnnnnn]

Applied 3 times:

 

1: Had no idea what I was doing. Very little research experience. Had just figured out I wanted to attend grad school... Slaughtered by reviewers.

2. Chose primary field A when I thought chose B, and submitted past the deadline for A and too late to switch to B. (Yes, I'm seriously that stupid)

3. Got two publications out in the past year (didn't do much, but managed to contribute enough to merit my name on the list). Started early. Agonized about my GPA (which had been meh in undergrad). Also, wrote one of my own LORs and brought up a lot of stuff my prof had probably forgotten. ><

 

TLDR: I got it this year (E/E, E/E, E/E) - wheeeeeeeee!

[tapdncingchemist]

E/E

E/VG

E/VG

 

One of the reviewers seems to have misunderstood my accomplishments, but it was more to do with the specific area they were in rather than the actual quality of them.

 

Wasn't expecting it, but super-excited.  Actually, I didn't get an email from them, just happened to check the website right after the results were posted.  They said emails had been sent and I assumed I didn't get it because I didn't get the email.  Went to see who did get it and saw my name.

[schroedingersmeerkat]

2. Chose primary field A when I thought chose B, and submitted past the deadline for A and too late to switch to B. (Yes, I'm seriously that stupid)

 

I did that last year. I thought I was the only one! I'm sure we both chose Engineering - Materials because it comes first in the drop-down list. This year, I chose that one on purpose.

Edited April 3, 2013 by schroedingersmeerkat

[anacron]

Award notification got spam filtered but found out from congratulatory emails from reference writers. 

 

Applied for the computational science branch of computer science.

 

E/E

VG/E

E/E

 

Reviewers were incredibly nice in their comments and were raving about reference letters (goes to show just how important these reference letters are). 

[InquilineKea]

F/F

VG/VG

 

I want to hurt myself