MTL18 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Wow... I hesitate to post this because it's only anecdotal evidence, but Andrew Granville's comment at the bottom of this article says that someone at U de M with a perfect GPA was rejected by NSERC this year. (They might have had a crummy proposal of course, but what are the chances someone with a perfect GPA wouldn't put a decent amount of effort into their proposal?) I hope it's not as rough a year as that might seem to indicate. Good luck to everyone! At that Master's level, that seems unrealistic. Just remember though, a large chunk of this is proposal, environment, and politics - fail any of those 3 and you could easily not get an award. That being said, getting an award doesn't always mean you are the best either. Just as those 3 above can torch your award, they can also over-inflate it as well. There is a ton of subjectivity in deciding these. Take your result either way with a grain of salt and carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selecttext Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 I think you are really overplaying the subjectivity aspect. A post-graduate proposal is not held nearly to the same scientific scrutiny as an NSERC Discovery proposal. Students are not held to their research proposals whatsoever and so politicking with PGS awards is pointless. They use metrics to score the research proposals based on the strength of the arguments, the scientific merit and a number of other criteria that you can find on the website of any graduate awards office. Of course if your proposal is completely non-mainstream or for some disputed science you may run into trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spandexpanda Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 I think you are really overplaying the subjectivity aspect. A post-graduate proposal is not held nearly to the same scientific scrutiny as an NSERC Discovery proposal. Students are not held to their research proposals whatsoever and so politicking with PGS awards is pointless. They use metrics to score the research proposals based on the strength of the arguments, the scientific merit and a number of other criteria that you can find on the website of any graduate awards office. Of course if your proposal is completely non-mainstream or for some disputed science you may run into trouble. Not sure how you don't think people could be bias towards certain students, supervisors, subjects, et cetera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selecttext Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 (edited) Because people who volunteer many hours to wade through applications probably give a damn about the legitimacy of the process. It's not like there are internal politics or directives in relation to which proposals will pass because no one is held to them. Edited March 24, 2013 by selecttext Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvolBiol Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 (edited) People, reviewers not excluded, are influenced by perception. Elements of an application may be evaluated differently under such perception than if each element was scrutinized individually and absolutely. Reviewers will almost certainly be more/less forgiving of weak elements of an application given their overall perception of candidate quality. Happens all the time. There are so many elements to the applications. You can write an awesome proposal but if they've already read your weak reference letter they may view it in a different light,... As much as we can wish/hope the review process is robotic enough to be completely objective, the reviewers are human, and most likely tired overworked humans,…! Is this good or bad, not sure. Is it fair,...most of the time I suppose?! I don't think it means they give any less of a damn. ....that's why I think its important to treat your application, with all its components, as an integrative dynamic whole. Each section should feed off of and into the next (cross reference throughout!). Synthesize, and don't rely on any one piece to carry you through. Edited March 24, 2013 by EvolBiol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selecttext Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 You guys should read this. http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Students-Etudiants/SF-process_eng.pdf . The review process is hardly at an individual's whim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvolBiol Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 have you TAed? even with a strict rubric there is plasticity.... that doesn't mean they aren't giving it everything to stick to the guidelines (ie., no acting on a whim), variability in scoring just happens. MTL18 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spandexpanda Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Because people who volunteer many hours to wade through applications probably give a damn about the legitimacy of the process. It's not like there are internal politics or directives in relation to which proposals will pass because no one is held to them. I hate to break it to you, but research isn't as objective as you'd think Humans will be humans. MTL18 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTL18 Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 I think you are really overplaying the subjectivity aspect. Think: meaning your opinion vs. mine (and the many that followed). Subjectivity: Any system that compares 1 proposal to another will always be susceptible to corruption and bias. Welcome to the real world! MTL18 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliasg Posted March 25, 2013 Author Share Posted March 25, 2013 Guys, i think you will have new before wednesday. Any from Polytechnique here ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selecttext Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 yes but as i said, you are giving to much weight to subjectivity in relation to the research proposal. there are many opportunities to reduce its effects in the selection criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTL18 Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) You guys should read this. http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Students-Etudiants/SF-process_eng.pdf . The review process is hardly at an individual's whim. Okay, here is how the scores break down: There are 4 quadrants (0-25, 26-50, 51-75, 76-100) for each category (academic, research, leadership). Based on how you stack up to the competition, you are placed in a quadrant and given a number in that quadrant that indicates your strength of weakness. That is how there becomes variability. Your scores per reviewer are then averaged (there are 2 reviewers). That score is then multiplied by the percentage net worth it is. All 3 sections are added and your total score is calculated. It is there that you are ranked in your entire committee. If the 2 reviewers disagree heavily on your position in the quadrants, that is where your file is reviewed in February and the entire panel votes on where you rank. Each CGS/PGS application gets around 5 minutes of time. It is not as intense as you seem to believe. If you disagree with any of this, feel free to contact NSERC - I did last summer when I thought my score was low (especially in academics). A 51 means you were above half of the population, but you are still far away from the top, and that can sink you. However, if the 2 people reviewing your file like your prof or believe you are in a good lab, your research component can get a great ranking even if you are not the strongest candidate. So, yes, bias can easily influence this. And matters that are outside of your control (school, prof, tools), can become very powerful. Best of luck. Edit: That article does contain everything I wrote (except for the quadrants). Edited March 25, 2013 by MTL18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliasg Posted March 25, 2013 Author Share Posted March 25, 2013 yes but as i said, you are giving to much weight to subjectivity in relation to the research proposal. there are many opportunities to reduce its effects in the selection criteria. your proposal must be hot and attractive. When the reviewer read your "Motivation and Problematic" section, he must be attracted ...and want to read the rest of the document. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliasg Posted March 25, 2013 Author Share Posted March 25, 2013 Okay, here is how the scores break down: There are 4 quadrants (0-25, 26-50, 51-75, 76-100) for each category (academic, research, leadership). Based on how you stack up to the competition, you are placed in a quadrant and given a number in that quadrant that indicates your strength of weakness. That is how there becomes variability. Your scores per reviewer are then averaged (there are 2 reviewers). That score is then multiplied by the percentage net worth it is. All 3 sections are added and your total score is calculated. It is there that you are ranked in your entire committee. If the 2 reviewers disagree heavily on your position in the quadrants, that is where your file is reviewed in February and the entire panel votes on where you rank. Each CGS/PGS application gets around 5 minutes of time. It is not as intense as you seem to believe. If you disagree with any of this, feel free to contact NSERC - I did last summer when I thought my score was low (especially in academics). A 51 means you were above half of the population, but you are still far away from the top, and that can sink you. However, if the 2 people reviewing your file like your prof or believe you are in a good lab, your research component can get a great ranking even if you are not the strongest candidate. So, yes, bias can easily influence this. And matters that are outside of your control (school, prof, tools), can become very powerful. Best of luck. Totally agree .... Mu supervisor is in the NSERC comittee and the NSERC request that in each quadrant, we have 25% of the candidate. It's a lot of work for the reviewer. Thas's why everyhing must be perfect. If the reviewer did not understant something in your application, il will atomativcally reject it and pass to another application. They dont have time to waste. Each reviewer see in average 140 applications (70 as a first reviewe and 70 as a second reviewer) MTL18 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selecttext Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) Totally agree .... Mu supervisor is in the NSERC comittee and the NSERC request that in each quadrant, we have 25% of the candidate. It's a lot of work for the reviewer. Thas's why everyhing must be perfect. If the reviewer did not understant something in your application, il will atomativcally reject it and pass to another application. They dont have time to waste. Each reviewer see in average 140 applications (70 as a first reviewe and 70 as a second reviewer) fair enough, 70% of the selection criteria is communication and research ability. if they can't understand your application, then of course they will pass on it. Edited March 25, 2013 by selecttext Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stamp Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Found out I got CGS-M this afternoon in Alberta! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solihat Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Does the school rank their applicants when forward their applications to NSERC ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnoel12 Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Does the school rank their applicants when forward their applications to NSERC ? I have heard from a few different people that they do. I don't know what the purpose of this ranking is though. I am not sure whether or not NSERC takes it into consideration. solihat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnoel12 Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Found out I got CGS-M this afternoon in Alberta! congrats Stamp 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowshoes Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Found out I got CGS-M this afternoon in Alberta! Congrats! Did you (or anyone else for that matter) receive a letter informing you? I am still hesitant about contacting graduate studies, because I am sure they are being inundated with like-minded individuals and it is a good exercise in patience... as I sit here and listen for the mailbox to slam shut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solihat Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 I have heard from a few different people that they do. I don't know what the purpose of this ranking is though. I am not sure whether or not NSERC takes it into consideration. Do they rank in a committee basis like what NSERC does or they rank them globally (they give order for all the applicant regardless of their program) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winter2012 Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Okay, here is how the scores break down: There are 4 quadrants (0-25, 26-50, 51-75, 76-100) for each category (academic, research, leadership). Based on how you stack up to the competition, you are placed in a quadrant and given a number in that quadrant that indicates your strength of weakness. That is how there becomes variability. Your scores per reviewer are then averaged (there are 2 reviewers). That score is then multiplied by the percentage net worth it is. All 3 sections are added and your total score is calculated. It is there that you are ranked in your entire committee. If the 2 reviewers disagree heavily on your position in the quadrants, that is where your file is reviewed in February and the entire panel votes on where you rank. Each CGS/PGS application gets around 5 minutes of time. It is not as intense as you seem to believe. If you disagree with any of this, feel free to contact NSERC - I did last summer when I thought my score was low (especially in academics). A 51 means you were above half of the population, but you are still far away from the top, and that can sink you. However, if the 2 people reviewing your file like your prof or believe you are in a good lab, your research component can get a great ranking even if you are not the strongest candidate. So, yes, bias can easily influence this. And matters that are outside of your control (school, prof, tools), can become very powerful. Best of luck. Edit: That article does contain everything I wrote (except for the quadrants). Thank you for the information. Greatly helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phalanges Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 The Grad Studies Office at Waterloo sent me an email this morning with congratulations on receiving a PGS D. They said a letter would come in the mail from NSERC next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winter2012 Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) Does the school rank their applicants when forward their applications to NSERC ? Yes the school ranks their applicants. The ranking begins from the department and then the Faculty. Let me give you my example. Total 65 eligible applicants (MSc+PhD) from the department out of 450 MSc and PhD Students (2008 example). Ranked from 1 to 35 applicants forwarded to the Faculty of Graduate Studies (by the Department) Ranked from 1-18 were forwarded to NSERC (FoGS). 10 out of 18 ranked applicants were awarded fellowships (1CGS-D3; 3PGS-D3; 6 CGS-M). Edited March 25, 2013 by winter2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winter2012 Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 The Grad Studies Office at Waterloo sent me an email this morning with congratulations on receiving a PGS D. They said a letter would come in the mail from NSERC next week. Interesting. I remember getting a letter from NSERC before getting an email from the graduate office. That was in 2008 though. Congratulations. 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