NSF GRFP 2013-14

[lacy627]

First time applying as a senior undergrad with the following reviews:

 

1) VG, VG

2) G, F

3) VG, G

 

Outcome: Not Awarded

 

Reviewer 1 & 3 gave very positive feedback with hardly any comments about how to improve but reviewer 2 basically hated everything about the research project (perhaps I just had a bad luck with this reviewer??). It was a learning experience and I am excited to start work on improving my application for next year! Congrats to all the winners!

Edited April 1, 2014 by lacy627

[Eigen]

Based on past years, I'm pretty sure the "feedback" is the notes the reviewers made to help them remember what stood out about the application. 

 

Hence the repetition of words or phrases from the applications themselves. 

 

I'll also reiterate the advice that if you feel like someone completely missed your point, it's worth thinking about how to make sure that doesn't happen again. 

 

For grant proposals and review in general, there's no such thing as being too clear, obvious, and to the point. Most real grant proposals make liberal use of underlining, bolding, italics, and the consistent repetition of important phrases to make sure that the reviewers get the most important, crucial points of the proposal. 

[NESURF]

1st year graduate student. This was my first time applying.

 

G/VG

P/P

VG/VG

 

I was not recommended for the award. 

[closetchem]

1. E/VG

2. G/E

3. VG/VG

 

Not awarded

Panel: Neuroscience

 

I had some very well thought out feedback from my reviewers. It appears the only thing they had an issue with was my experimental design language and explanation. Their assessment is very fair and was my one real worry about my application. My PI wanted the details, I didn't, he won, we both lost. Good learning experience. I received an Honorable Mention last year, so I feel confident that I can make a very strong application next year because of the great advice I have received from the reviewers.

[cmacwiz]

VG/VG

 

VG/G

 

Concrete BI lacked. I brought up my interest in establishing scientific enrichment programs for kids K-12 for BI, and thought I hammered home the technical BI of my proposed research without being tooo redundant. Guess not. 

 

Side note: I brought up my desire to avoid academia post grad school, and a reviewer said it was "notable" (bad/good idk)

 

nada

 

[EngiNerd-12]

VG/VG
G/G

G/G

Not recommended

 

I didn't really get feedback on how to improve the application. First one said I was great and last one did too (but no other feedback aside from good candidate). 

 

Congrats to those who got it! 

[Dash]

E/VG

E/E

E/E

 

Honorable mention

 

 

Does anybody have information on whether the estimated 2,700 awards this season is still a valid prediction or will the NSF aim again for ~2000? Perhaps a significant number of HM will be bumped up this year once the funds are secured.

I'd also be interested in hearing if any new information has came out regarding this. I got an HM this year (2nd time applicant) and while a massive long-shot, this is definitely relevant to my interest. I thought I had read that Congress had passed a bill and that instead of NSF upping the award number to 2,700 that it was staying at 2,000 and that stipends were simply being increased. Anyone know what the actual truth is with some sources?

 

Thanks!

[budgie]

Press release from the NSF about this years awards: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=130974&org=NSF&from=news

[Vader Was Framed]

Congrats to folks who are now NSF fellows, nice work! I enjoyed reading the play-by-play of the release.

 

I should have applied this year in parallel to my PhD program apps. I have a M.S. but didn't realize I was NSF-eligible until late in 2013. Will be applying next year (year 1 of PhD). 

 

In addition to undergrad record, publications, conferences, is professional experience also taken into account on the qualifications side of things? 

[troopiedoop]

 

Specically, the statements gave little insight and / or did not address (explicitly) communication

of the research to the general public, the applicant's involvement with society, integration of research and

education, stimulation of underprivileged groups, minorities or women towards STEM education or some

other form of societal benet other than purely the intellectual impact of the project, the broader impact

the applicant has to society as a researcher and other personal attributes. As the broader impact is one of

the two general criteria for this programme, this omission was injurious for the overall ranking. I could not

ignore one of the two criteria of the programme.

There was some evidence of an interest in enhancing STEM education and given the presentation record, one

can argue that there is an interest of sharing research with the scientic community (but does this extent to

intrinsic interest or is it limited to obligatory conference appearances? Does one grab each opportunity to

discuss research and become absorbed by such a discussion?)

 

^^ One of my BI reviews. Does anyone else get the impression that certain parts of the review like "broader impact the applicant has to society as a researcher and other personal attributes" means "is privileged and white" ? This BI review seems really harsh against me, even perhaps unfair, when I mentioned communication of results and tutoring efforts(thought not specifically to underprivileged groups). Does anyone have any comments or thoughts?

[pyroknife]

Got it

E/E E/E E/VG

 

The review seems to be very flawed. My outreach/tutoring (broadening participation part) seemed quite weak. I had literally one or two instances (like 2 hours each time) that I talked about. I left out the part that these were only one time things (but I didn't lie either) and somehow I get praised from all 3 reviewers for these one time ordeals. Seems kinda unfair. I'm also very surprised how some of the, i'd say average (maybe a little above) students in my school got it, but stellar students did not, but NSF does have their own criteria. 

 

Will be declining award anyways, so hopefully it opens up for some HM. 

Edited April 2, 2014 by pyroknife

[troopiedoop]

 I left out the part that these were only one time things (but I didn't lie either) and somehow I get praised from all 3 reviewers for these one time ordeals. Seems kinda unfair.

 

Right...I had been tutoring mathematics roughly 10 hours a week for close to 3 years. If that's not enhancing access to STEM education, I'm not sure what else can be done.

[loginofpscl]

What do you mean by priveleged and white troopiedoop?

[GeoDUDE!]

Congrats to folks who are now NSF fellows, nice work! I enjoyed reading the play-by-play of the release.

 

I should have applied this year in parallel to my PhD program apps. I have a M.S. but didn't realize I was NSF-eligible until late in 2013. Will be applying next year (year 1 of PhD). 

 

In addition to undergrad record, publications, conferences, is professional experience also taken into account on the qualifications side of things? 

 

I don't think you will qualify if you are in your third year of graduate school.

[troopiedoop]

What do you mean by priveleged and white troopiedoop?

 

What broader impact does the researcher herself/himself ("personal attributes") have to "bring to society" other than bringing diversity to the scientific community ? The white/privileged was meant to say that I don't bring diversity, and that seems to be a problem that the reviewer had with my BI.

[omegaphisoc]

Well considering less than 20% of awards went to underrepresented minority groups (http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=130974&org=NSF&from=news) I'd say more than a few applicants found a way around this BI "problem" of yours. 

[loginofpscl]

I'm inclined to think that they not only look at what you've done, but also why you're doing it. If you can reflect your desire to contribute to broader impacts as they define it, then that might assist your application.

Diversity doesn't only come from being a specific race, but having experiences that lend you unusual (diverse) perspectives would improve your ability to diversify your field.

[omegaphisoc]

Not every reviewer reviews every application. My question was concerning whether this one reviewer was being fair. 

 

Besides...I also see that 53% of the awards went to women. Do you also think roughly 53% of the applications came from women ? Or that 19% of the applications came from underrepresented minorities?

 

Touche. I completely agree that (unfortunately) a lot of this seems to come down to luck of the draw with respect to reviewers

[loginofpscl]

It can get frustrating but I'm not sure reviewers see what race you are. I believe the NSF allocates awards based on that and the reviewers don't have a say at all. Or at least I think this should be the case!

[themostcake]

Hello all! I've been reading this thread during the last few days, but I am finally posting for the first time... Reading all your posts was very helpful for me... it relieved my stress and anxiety a little, and it answered many of my questions! So, thanks for all your posts!

 

My results: Honorable Mentions

VG/VG

VG/E

VG/VG

VG/E

 

And yes-- I received FOUR (4) reviews!!!! Does anyone know what that means???

 

P.S. The reviews were all really positive... one reviewer commented on how I could improve my proposal (=adding some preliminary data I talked about.. but there was no space to do this!). However, they all talked about how my proposal has great potential, was clear, has good reasoning, was original, etc. So I don't think not getting the award was because of my proposal.

[archaeo-nemesis]

Forgive me if this is an ignorant question, but is there any way to find out the distribution of 2014 awards by field other than individually tallying the entries on the award recipient list? I'm curious to find out how many awards were given in my subject area and wondered if anyone knew how to figure it out. 

[th3catalyst]

Hi everyone! I have been reading this forum for a long time but haven't ever posted. I've found your posts to be very helpful in getting information about the whole application/review/notification process. And helpful to know that others were stressing as much as me waiting for notifications. 

 

I was awarded the felllowship this year. I am a second year graduate student in biochemistry. My reviews were E/E E/E E/E. 

 

I applied last year and got nada. My reviews last year were E/VG E/F E/G. All three reviewers last year said my broader impacts were weak. So in preparing to re-apply, I did everything I could to bolster my broader impacts sections as well as just be more obvious about them (i.e. putting "broader impacts" sections in my essays). When I applied last year, I didn't put any of my outreach/community service activities in my essays (even though I had done quite a bit of that) because I didn't think they were directly relevant to my project. I didn't realize the reviewers wanted to see those activities to show your commitment to outreach. 

 

I also had only one publication the last time I applied and several in prep/review. So I worked really hard to get those publications out before reapplying and had many more publications when I applied this time. 

 

So my advice to all those who didn't get it and have a chance to reapply is to (1) make sure your application is VERY clear, easy to read, and makes it obvious what broader impacts you have and (2) try and get publications out there if you are sitting on manuscripts in preparation.

 

I am at a small school and went to a small undergrad, but I have worked hard and participate in a lot of mentoring/outreach activities. Anyway, I honestly wasn't sure what to expect but I shrieked when I saw the letter in my email, and then cried, a lot. I am so grateful and honored to be a part of this. Congratulations to all those who were awarded, and best of luck to those who reapply next year. I know the heartache of rejection (was very disappointed last year and actually was rejected from NDSEG and DOE last year too), but I think it is important to keep trying. 

 

Thanks everyone for all of your helpful posts!

[YaBoyAR]

Edited: Never mind - Figured it out.

Edited April 2, 2014 by YaBoyAR

[Fisherer]

Thanks everyone for posting your results and info about what your reviewers said, regardless of whether you got the award or not.  Looking at other people's reviews and not just my own is helping to paint a clearer picture for exactly what they are looking for.

 

I have a question: I was not recommended for an award this year, as I said in my earlier post.  My research is time-sensitive and must be conducted next spring.  If I muster up the courage to take out a loan and go to school, and I conduct my research from March-June of 2015, am I still eligible to apply for the GRFP this coming fall?  Even though my research will have already begun before decisions come out?  Obviously the grant will no longer be able to help me out as far as funding research costs, but the cost of living stipend and tuition stipend would still be much appreciated the following academic year.

[YaBoyAR]

Thanks everyone for posting your results and info about what your reviewers said, regardless of whether you got the award or not.  Looking at other people's reviews and not just my own is helping to paint a clearer picture for exactly what they are looking for.

 

I have a question: I was not recommended for an award this year, as I said in my earlier post.  My research is time-sensitive and must be conducted next spring.  If I muster up the courage to take out a loan and go to school, and I conduct my research from March-June of 2015, am I still eligible to apply for the GRFP this coming fall?  Even though my research will have already begun before decisions come out?  Obviously the grant will no longer be able to help me out as far as funding research costs, but the cost of living stipend and tuition stipend would still be much appreciated the following academic year.

I think you may be misunderstanding the purpose of the Fellowship. They are funding you, not the project. In fact, I'm not doing anything related to my proposal and the NSF doesn't care. So, yes, you can apply for next year and you can still win it - assuming you meet the tenure requirements. Whether or not you are doing research, not doing research, is irrelevant. Hope this helps.