NSERC 2013 - 2014

[spandexpanda]

I decided to give second try. I wish I knew my score but never tried to contact NSERC. What I think is that  people who got scholarship last year they deserved it. People who did not make it also deserved the scholarship but because the funding level was drastically cut down, many highly qualified candidates could not get the award NOT because that their application was poor but because that the funding cap was drastically brought down by the federal government. As some one above mentioned that the funding for NSERC fellowship will go up this year, lets hope that many of us will be able to share good news in this forum soon.  

 

My credentials were pretty good and I was devastated to find out my ranking was 155 out of 207 in my committee!  I couldn't believe it.  Makes me think I don't have a hope this year despite having my application forwarded again.

 

If (when) I get another rejection I'm applying for an industrial NSERC.  Sorry to hear you've been having difficulties finding a cooperative company.

 

Hopefully the budget helps us out this year!

[fish_man]

How do you find out your ranking within your committee?

[jnoel12]

I didn't write anything about "helping Canada" in my proposal. However my subject area is math, so I don't think that it would be appropriate to do so. I just wrote a few open problems in math that I plan to work on, possible approaches, etc.

This is actually the first time that I've heard that applicants should write something about the benefit of their research to Canada. Do most people do this?

To me, it seems a bit dishonest to crowbar some "Canadian content" into the proposal. I also think that it would be narrow minded if NSERC thought that all research in Canada should have a direct and measurable practical affect on Canada in the near future. What happened to knowledge for the sake of knowledge? Isn't that part of being in academia?

[Guest |||]

I didn't write anything about "helping Canada" in my proposal. However my subject area is math, so I don't think that it would be appropriate to do so. I just wrote a few open problems in math that I plan to work on, possible approaches, etc.

This is actually the first time that I've heard that applicants should write something about the benefit of their research to Canada. Do most people do this?

To me, it seems a bit dishonest to crowbar some "Canadian content" into the proposal. I also think that it would be narrow minded if NSERC thought that all research in Canada should have a direct and measurable practical affect on Canada in the near future. What happened to knowledge for the sake of knowledge? Isn't that part of being in academia?

 

Crowbaring "Canadian content" might be in bad taste, but if I had the wager in front of me - does it help or not?  I'd wager it helps.

 

Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is excellent, I love it, but, I think nserc has been pushing a fair bit for practical implications of research

[selecttext]

NSERC likes proposals which not only advance scientific theory but has practical applications. I think, however, that it is a big mistake to emphasize the research's applications above the other sections of the proposal - they should all be given similar weight. 

[snowshoes]

How do you find out your ranking within your committee?

You can email NSERC directly and ask them for your ranking (I didn't do this but know of people that did).

 

 

To me, it seems a bit dishonest to crowbar some "Canadian content" into the proposal. I also think that it would be narrow minded if NSERC thought that all research in Canada should have a direct and measurable practical affect on Canada in the near future. What happened to knowledge for the sake of knowledge? Isn't that part of being in academia?

As previously mentioned, it is about hedging your bets for a proposal that will be viewed in a positive light.  I don't think it is that hokey or dishonest to briefly introduce why your topic is important to Canadian society and affairs though.  NSERC grants are taxpayer funded and the whole point of them is to help support and cultivate better researchers and innovators in Canada.  You want to show them why your project fits the bill.  That said, I'm sure many, many people have obtained NSERC grants without doing so.

 

Pure science can be difficult to "sell", especially in Canada I think.  My project is a component of a larger one with very pragmatic goals and has even applied some of the results "in the field".  However, my component feels a bit more like an open-ended, pure science project.  As a result, I highlighted both aspects and provided evidence that this wasn't just a pie in the sky project without any end goal or real need for results.

 

On a similar note, I talked to an NSERC chair several years ago and she said everyone was tacking on climate change to their Discovery or PGS grants, even if it really wasn't that relevant to their proposal.  As a result, she said when they were seeing projects related (even nominally) to climate change they were looked at in a more discerning light.

Edited March 20, 2013 by snowshoes

[MTL18]

NSERC likes proposals which not only advance scientific theory but has practical applications. I think, however, that it is a big mistake to emphasize the research's applications above the other sections of the proposal - they should all be given similar weight. 

 

I agree with you, but I'm annoyed by it. Scientific theory research is academic research. Trying to discover novel mechanisms for previously unknown scientific phenomena should be the core focus of academic research.

 

Practical applications is industry. That's why they make 10x the money we do and have their own form of government funding. It feels very short sighted to me, especially because what we find today may seem unpractical, but might become huge in 50-100 years. 

[snowshoes]

 It feels very short sighted to me, especially because what we find today may seem unpractical, but might become huge in 50-100 years. 

 

I completely agree with this.  It seems like many people don't understand this, and I think it is part of the Canadian research mentality in some respects.  NSF and other private/public funding organizations in the U.S. seem to put more into pure research.

 

Allocating the majority of resources to "flavour of the month" popular or politically-charged science and ignoring fundamental research is very short-sighted, but whether it is the government or the dean of a faculty, everyone wants to show commercially viable, short-term applicable results as their metric of productivity.

[selecttext]

I agree with you, but I'm annoyed by it. Scientific theory research is academic research. Trying to discover novel mechanisms for previously unknown scientific phenomena should be the core focus of academic research.

 

practical applications are not necessarily geared towards industry, but i do agree with your comment in that the current funding scheme makes it almost impossible to collect long term data sets which is exactly why  the shutting of the experimental lakes area is so devastating. Having said that, as post-graduates are not held to their research proposals, and the funding is a stipend rather then research funds I think that this style of research proposal is a good exercise.

Edited March 20, 2013 by selecttext

[jnoel12]

Does anyone have a good idea of how much more competitive the PhD awards are vs. the Master's awards?

From the information that I have seen, it seems that at the Master's level they rarely give out PGS M awards. Usually, people either win CGS M or nothing. But at the PhD level it is very different... It seems that PGS D is more popular than CGS D, perhaps because of the large difference in the size of the award.

 

For someone who won CGS M as a Master's student, what are the chances that they will receive an award (either PGS or CGS) at the PhD level? Does anyone have any personal experience with this?

Edited March 20, 2013 by jnoel12

[selecttext]

For MSc, CGS-M are awarded but can be converted to PGS-M if the applicant should choose to attend a non-canadian university. As the CGS-D represents a significantly greater sum of money, fewer are awarded. You can see the break down here: http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/FundingDecisions-DecisionsFinancement/ScholarshipsAndFellowships-ConcoursDeBourses/index_eng.asp.

 

From the breakdown, you can see that 40% of -D applicants received awards whereas 53% of -M applicants received awads in 2012

 

In 2010, it was 67% for -D and 75% for -M 

Edited March 20, 2013 by selecttext

[TakeruK]

I don't think you need to make your research proposal "specific to helping Canada", although maybe this depends on the committee you're applying to. I won a CGS-M in 2010 and a CGS-D3 in 2012 (but I declined it to take a PGS-D to the US, so hopefully someone got my CGS, if it even works that way!) and both of my research proposals had absolutely no practical applications at all. However, I believe that it really helped that my research statement described a potential MSc/PhD project that was both interesting and well motivated to appeal to a general audience. It might also help that I was in the Physics/Astronomy committee, which is more "pure science" so there is generally less need to justify your work with a practical reasoning. Instead, it's much more important to justify how your work can help other scientists in your own field! You need to show that your research will have an impact, but it doesn't necessarily have to be practical or economical.

I really think the evaluation criteria given by NSERC on their webpage (at PhD level, 50% research potential, 30% grades, 20% community service) is an accurate reflection of what NSERC values in selecting their fellowship winners. The research statement is probably what is necessary to distinguish other good "on paper" stats (e.g. grades, publications). In order to write my research statement, I contacted professors at schools I wanted to do my MSc or PhD in, and told them that I am applying to work with them and that I'm applying for NSERC funding, so would they mind taking 30mins to an hour to discuss a potential project with me. In one case, we had a series of meetings where the prof assigned me some reading, then I wrote a draft, then we went over the draft, and finally I submitted it. I think it's really helpful to be writing a proposal about an real/plausible PhD project, because faculty members are the ones that know what is really achievable and can anticipate difficulties so you can address them in your proposals. So I really recommend that people get a faculty member to at least read over what you wrote -- I've found some of the NSERC proposals I've read to be either aiming unrealistically high, or were too vague (no goals set, just the "let's do science and see what happens" attitude). 

 

Basically, they are investing up to $100,000 (and their reputation as a federal granting agency) on you so you need to instill confidence in them that you will be worth their money. It is basically a grant application and applying for money is much different than applying to schools or writing an academic paper.

Edited March 20, 2013 by TakeruK

[QueensCS]

I don't think you need to make your research proposal "specific to helping Canada", although maybe this depends on the committee you're applying to. I won a CGS-M in 2010 and a CGS-D3 in 2012 (but I declined it to take a PGS-D to the US, so hopefully someone got my CGS, if it even works that way!) and both of my research proposals had absolutely no practical applications at all. However, I believe that it really helped that my research statement described a potential MSc/PhD project that was both interesting and well motivated to appeal to a general audience. It might also help that I was in the Physics/Astronomy committee, which is more "pure science" so there is generally less need to justify your work with a practical reasoning. Instead, it's much more important to justify how your work can help other scientists in your own field! You need to show that your research will have an impact, but it doesn't necessarily have to be practical or economical.

I really think the evaluation criteria given by NSERC on their webpage (at PhD level, 50% research potential, 30% grades, 20% community service) is an accurate reflection of what NSERC values in selecting their fellowship winners. The research statement is probably what is necessary to distinguish other good "on paper" stats (e.g. grades, publications). In order to write my research statement, I contacted professors at schools I wanted to do my MSc or PhD in, and told them that I am applying to work with them and that I'm applying for NSERC funding, so would they mind taking 30mins to an hour to discuss a potential project with me. In one case, we had a series of meetings where the prof assigned me some reading, then I wrote a draft, then we went over the draft, and finally I submitted it. I think it's really helpful to be writing a proposal about an real/plausible PhD project, because faculty members are the ones that know what is really achievable and can anticipate difficulties so you can address them in your proposals. So I really recommend that people get a faculty member to at least read over what you wrote -- I've found some of the NSERC proposals I've read to be either aiming unrealistically high, or were too vague (no goals set, just the "let's do science and see what happens" attitude). 

 

Basically, they are investing up to $100,000 (and their reputation as a federal granting agency) on you so you need to instill confidence in them that you will be worth their money. It is basically a grant application and applying for money is much different than applying to schools or writing an academic paper.

Very informative post. But I guessed most applicants are aware of the fact that, essentially they have to sell their proposal and for that it has to appear appealing from an application point of view as well.

 

And yes, your way of writing a proposal is I guess one of the best ways to follow. Getting a faculty to look at your proposal is very useful. 

[QueensCS]

If it has any relation to budget date at all, this year we should hear it earlier than last year as the budget will be released tomorrow March 21st. Keeping my fingers crossed.

[jnoel12]

If it has any relation to budget date at all, this year we should hear it earlier than last year as the budget will be released tomorrow March 21st. Keeping my fingers crossed.

My thoughts exactly. I'm nervous...

[Funhe]

Just received word from the UBC awards department that I got NSERC. No word on what kind (PGS/CGS), I applied for my PhD in bio. WOO Good luck!

[QueensCS]

Just received word from the UBC awards department that I got NSERC. No word on what kind (PGS/CGS), I applied for my PhD in bio. WOO Good luck!

WOW! Congrats, hope we all get some sort of good news soon.

[selecttext]

damn you b.c. you were notified already

 

but seriously, congrats!!!

[ClinPsyPhDCnd]

If departments are already starting to find out, does that mean the letters will be/have already been sent out?

[selecttext]

If departments are already starting to find out, does that mean the letters will be/have already been sent out?

 

not necessarily, but if you are on the list, a kind dept chair will notify you as was our compatriot.

[TheInfelicitousDandy]

Didn't get mine.  Very disappointed. 

[snowshoes]

Didn't get mine.  Very disappointed. 

 

You received a rejection today?  By mail or what?  Sorry to hear that.

 

On another note: IT BEGINS.  The anxiety, people trolling early on by saying they heard from NSERC, the post count doubling daily... this message board was way too much fun last year

[jnoel12]

I sent an e-mail to my department (Math at McGill). They haven't gotten any information from NSERC yet .

Edited March 21, 2013 by jnoel12

[MTL18]

I think they are starting to filter out. I just did a twitter search for "NSERC CGS" and a tweet showed up highlighting that someone was awarded one. I don't want to post the persons twitter profile or the name of the recipient on this forum though. The tweet was sent 10 hours ago. 

 

Good luck to all. 

[Guest |||]

People who are a shoe in may find out earlier than others.  As how many awards are given out by nserc might vary based on government allocation, but unless the whole system blows up, the top 10 will get awards regardless of what budget is given.