NSF GRFP 2013-14

[marty3]

Or how disabilities are weighted?

 

I can't really comment on how much disabilities are weighted, but they can be viewed positively. I discussed mine in my essays, specifically the challenges it creates, how I've overcome them, and how I have learned from them to be sensitive to the learning needs of others. 2 of my 3 reviewers from my last application mentioned this explicitly and very favorably in their comments. After discussing reviewer comments with several friends, it seems to generate the same enthusiasm (and perhaps overall "weight") as females who discuss the challenges of being in male-dominated fields. Simply being disabled probably won't help a whole lot by itself. But it can give the applicant interesting experiences to discuss. Those experiences are unique and, if relevant, can help.

 

And I too am extremely antsy. I got an HM last time as an undergrad.

[clandry]

.  1/3 of awards go to fourth year undergraduates, 1/3 go to first year graduate students, and 1/3 go to second year graduate students.  

 

Is that right? I was under the impression that # of awards allocated for a student in a certain year (undergrad, 1st year grad, 2nd year grad) is proportional to the # of applications received for that group.

[stmwap]

Is that right? I was under the impression that # of awards allocated for a student in a certain year (undergrad, 1st year grad, 2nd year grad) is proportional to the # of applications received for that group.

Oh, you're probably right.

[Josh70]

The wait is killing me as well. I am not sure why I am so worried, I am already in the lab I love and we are ok on funding. I just will feel so disappointed for some reason.  

[ecodilley]

Is that right? I was under the impression that # of awards allocated for a student in a certain year (undergrad, 1st year grad, 2nd year grad) is proportional to the # of applications received for that group.

I have heard from a few different graduate students that undergraduates have the best chance at getting it in many fields since there are less undergrad applicants. With that in mind it would only make sense for it to be easier for undergrads if they comprise 1/3 of awards on average.

[blackpeppered]

http://news.sciencemag.org/education/2014/03/nsf-plans-changes-graduate-fellowships-traineeships

 

While the stipend is increasing, there will NOT be any additional slots compared to last year, leaving only 2,000 slots available. Stakes went up, chances went down.

[guttata]

http://news.sciencemag.org/education/2014/03/nsf-plans-changes-graduate-fellowships-traineeships

 

While the stipend is increasing, there will NOT be any additional slots compared to last year, leaving only 2,000 slots available. Stakes went up, chances went down.

 

Someone want to call them up and say we'll take the 2k less for the 5-700 more slots?

[threnagyn]

http://news.sciencemag.org/education/2014/03/nsf-plans-changes-graduate-fellowships-traineeships

 

While the stipend is increasing, there will NOT be any additional slots compared to last year, leaving only 2,000 slots available. Stakes went up, chances went down.

 

Thats pretty discouraging news. Our chances of getting the award just decreased by 20% in the case of 2,500 awards, or by 26% in the case of 2,700 awards (as originally suggested). So they don't want to give out more fellowships, but they want to increase the stipend amount from $32,000 to $34,000? That seems like an odd tradeoff... $32,000 is already a lot of money compared to what students typically recieve as research assistants and/or teaching assistants.

 

Perhaps they went through most of the applications by now and are thinking that there just aren't 2,700 (or 2,500) quality applications and that they would rather just give more money to the more qualified students. I guess this kind of makes sense... The award rate at 2,000 awards was around 17%, 2,700 awards would push it around a 23% award rate. Kind of seems too high...

Edited March 13, 2014 by threnagyn

[fe3lg0odhit]

How do we know this isn't for next year?

[guttata]

How do we know this isn't for next year?

 

Because of the direct quote that says it's for this year's competition:

 

“Our initial request for 2014 was for something like 2500 [fellowships],” Marrett explains. “But when we looked more closely, we realized that it would be nearly impossible to sustain the program at that level. It’s just not workable under the current budget conditions. So we worked with [White House budget officials] to bring the size back down to 2000.”

[BioBum]

http://news.sciencemag.org/education/2014/03/nsf-plans-changes-graduate-fellowships-traineeships

 

While the stipend is increasing, there will NOT be any additional slots compared to last year, leaving only 2,000 slots available. Stakes went up, chances went down.

Bummer! I am already funded by my advisor, but, it would certainly be nice to be able to say I'm an NSF fellow (I'm hoping I didn't just jinx myself there). Compared to most, my stipend is generous. Let's be honest, 32k or even 30k is still very generous! I'm wondering what made them decide to raise the stipend instead of upping the number of awards to maybe not 2,700 but something manageable - perhaps a 100 more? From my understanding it's still a crap shoot anyway - you could get the reviewer that's having a bad day and that would be enough to hose you. Oh well, time will tell. 

[brownlee0182]

http://news.sciencemag.org/education/2014/03/nsf-plans-changes-graduate-fellowships-traineeships

 

 

The purpose of the GRFP, from the government's (i.e. NSF's) perspective is to get more science done cheaper. Therefore, this doesn't make sense. More scientists can do more science. More money in the pockets of grad students simply means more beer in the fridges of said grad students (and therefore LESS science being done. Not a tested hypothesis BTW. I'll start experiments this weekend). As far as I'm concerned $28K would be generous (and allow the NSF to increase the number of awards by nearly 300). I mean, who here is doing this science stuff for the money??? Anyone??? We, as grad students, apply for this award because, we want to do good science, we want to be recognized for said science (prestige), and we want to take the financial burden off of our PIs so that they can buy us pretty science toys (Mmmmm new pipette smell...). We don't apply for it because we make a few thousand more dollars a year (of course that is a HUGE bonus). Heck, I'd apply for it if all they did was match your schools stipend!!

 

Can anyone here suggest a reason as to why the NSF would increase the award amount by $2k as opposed to increasing the number of awards by 93.33? The only thing I can come up with is that they have some algorithm which suggests that they will get more total units of work by increasing award amounts vs awardee numbers. Seems odd though to me..... 

Edited March 13, 2014 by brownlee0182

[GeoDUDE!]

This doesn't make sense. More scientists can do more science. More money in the pockets of grad students simply means more beer in the fridges of said grad students (and therefore LESS science being done. Not a tested hypothesis BTW. I'll start experiments this weekend). As far as I'm concerned $28K would be generous (and allow the NSF to increase the number of awards by nearly 300). I mean, who here is doing this science stuff for the money??? Anyone??? We want to do good science, we want to be recognized for said science (prestige), and we want to take the financial burden off of our PIs so that they can buy us pretty science toys (Mmmmm new pipette smell...). This award fulfills those desires. 

 

Can anyone here suggest a reason as to why the NSF would increase the award amount by $2k as opposed to increasing the number of awards by 93.33? The only thing I can come up with is that they have some algorithm which suggests that they will get more total units of work by increasing award amounts vs awardee numbers. Seems odd though to me..... 

 

Iive in LA or Boston or NYC or SF ect.... the point of the GRF is that it enables you to choose where you go; its versitile. Any student capable of winning the GRF will be able to get into a good graduate school; enough funding is a different case.

[loginofpscl]

Iive in LA or Boston or NYC or SF ect.... the point of the GRF is that it enables you to choose where you go; its versitile. Any student capable of winning the GRF will be able to get into a good graduate school; enough funding is a different case.

 

There really isn't a place elsewhere for grad students to discuss this, so here's my two beans: I agree wholeheartedly with brownlee's notion. I think even if you live in Boston/SF the NSF shouldn't be a monetary reward. Whatever the school offers as a stipend should be enough to cover a reasonable cost of living. For example, the Stanford Chemistry stipend is actually ~2K more than the NSF award. 

 

I think this is how the NSF should structure the program: reduce the stipend amount and increase the amount of awardees. At this point students will already have been accepted to programs. If the stipend amount is less than the school's stipend (e.g. if the NSF award is 28,000 and Stanford is 34,000), then the school should match up to the difference. For many cities, this is way more than the regular student stipend. For example, the UT Austin stipend is 24k, and in this case the school wouldn't have to match up at all. This way, you get more awardees and schools bear part of the cost of having an essentially free grad student. One downside I can think of is that schools will admit smaller cohorts to reflect the increased burden on their budgets.

 

tl;dr: taxpayers shouldn't shoulder the cost of funding a grad student, and school endowments should be dipped into for this purpose.

Edited March 14, 2014 by loginofpscl

[GeoDUDE!]

I think everyone should get a trophy.

[guttata]

I think everyone should get a trophy.

 

Trophies for winners, participation ribbons for everyone?

[ecodilley]

http://news.sciencemag.org/education/2014/03/nsf-plans-changes-graduate-fellowships-traineeships

 

While the stipend is increasing, there will NOT be any additional slots compared to last year, leaving only 2,000 slots available. Stakes went up, chances went down.

If this is true, I wonder if more people ended up applying thinking that there were more awards on the table.  If that's the case, then this news could be doubly bad in that there may be more applicants than past years with the same amount of available awards.  It would be a bit of a cruel joke on the part of NSF putting out a number like 2700 and then in actuality keeping the number of awards at 2000

[parkridge]

Thread is picking up steam...

On another note, after having received an HM last year (paired with this being my last year of eligibility), I will honestly weep if I receive an actual award this year. WEEP. 

Edited March 14, 2014 by parkridge

[BioBum]

Thread is picking up steam...

On another note, after having received an HM last year (paired with this being my last year of eligibility), I will honestly weep if I receive an actual award this year. WEEP. 

I don't know anyone that wouldn't get at least a little emotional upon seeing that they received an award. This is the first year that I am applying and I am a pre-grad applicant. If I were to get the award there would certainly be tears of complete and absolute joy. One - All the effort I put in last fall would have paid off in a HUGE way. Two- I wouldn't have to go through the GRFP process a second time! 

When all is said and done, I still think applying for the GRFP was an amazing learning experience. I have published manuscripts both as a primary author and as an et al. Until the GRFP I had not written a research proposal. This process also helped me refine my personal statement which I ultimately modified to use for my application to grad school and I got in! At the very least, the GRFP  got me accepted to grad school. Even if I get terrible reviews on my application, I am still going to grad school in the fall and I get to do science! 

 

Edited March 14, 2014 by Tachycineta

[archaeo-nemesis]

If this is true, I wonder if more people ended up applying thinking that there were more awards on the table.  If that's the case, then this news could be doubly bad in that there may be more applicants than past years with the same amount of available awards.  It would be a bit of a cruel joke on the part of NSF putting out a number like 2700 and then in actuality keeping the number of awards at 2000

That was definitely a factor in my decision to apply this year. Now I can't help but think my chances are all but shot. 

[samuelbloom2]

So so antsy. Two weeks! And I'm on spring break next week so I'll have nothing to do but sit around and be anxious. 

[parkridge]

What do you guys/gals think? March 28th or April 4th?

[jmu]

I'm hoping for March 28. I have a form due to the graduate school outlining what I've done this year in April. It would be nice to have this on it as completed rather than waiting.

[zipykido]

My NIH committee meets on the 24th or 30th so hopefully I find out about both relatively close to each other so I don't have too long freak out especially if I don't receive one or both. It sucks that the number of acceptances isn't going up. I would rather forfeit a bit of my stipend and have more people enter the program since external funding is a great boost to both the fellow and the PI. More students in the system means more research can be conducted and also frees up money from other funding agencies (NIH, DoD, etc) since money originally geared towards tuition and stipends can be rerouted to research supplies and equipment. 

[BioBum]

I have to vent my frustrations here. 

I was talking to some people today about how they are raising the stipend in lieu of upping the number of awards. I expected the conversation to go the way it has been on this forum. I was dumbfounded when I heard a current fellow say that he IS GLAD that the number of awards isn't going up because his title as an NSF fellow will remain prestigious. My jaw hit the floor. The number of people applying to the GRFP increases every year - it's about time that the number of awards increased as well. Prestige is not an issue - just because the number of awards are increasing doesn't mean that NSF would suddenly start funding, as he called it "crap science". He seemed to think that with the extra 700 awards possibly being given out this year, NSF would be scraping the bottom of the barrel to fill those spots. After all of this - and the look of shock on my face - he asked if I knew if his award would increase because "it's only right". WHAT?!? I don't know about you all - but I do what I do for the love of it. Money is necessary to live and be able to do what I love to do but I am certainly not in science for the money. GRRRRRRRRRRR.