NSF GRFP 2013-14

[Eigen]

There is a very sharp upward trend.

Your first year, it's an 'empty' proposal for a school you may or may not go to.

Your second year, you should be in a group working on the project you proposed.

By a third year, you should have significant preliminary data showing that your proposal is sound, workable, and capable of generating results.

It's a bit discipline specific, but the general trends are sound.

Similarly, it's much more strongly considered that you have some publications/presentations showing expertise in what you are proposing by your second/third year.

[Igotnothin]

There is a very sharp upward trend.

Your first year, it's an 'empty' proposal for a school you may or may not go to.

Your second year, you should be in a group working on the project you proposed.

By a third year, you should have significant preliminary data showing that your proposal is sound, workable, and capable of generating results.

It's a bit discipline specific, but the general trends are sound.

Similarly, it's much more strongly considered that you have some publications/presentations showing expertise in what you are proposing by your second/third year.

 

All right I think I misinterpreted your meaning. I thought you were saying that the strength of GRFP applications in general is sharply increasing from year to year. I agree that from one year to the next you are being evaluated at a higher level due to your progression through the program.

[Eigen]

Yeah, you're not compared to everyone in a given year. 

 

You're only ever compared to applicants at the same stage you are- ie, 1st, 2nd and 3rd year applications are considered as different pools. 

[knightrunner]

Yeah, you're not compared to everyone in a given year. 

 

You're only ever compared to applicants at the same stage you are- ie, 1st, 2nd and 3rd year applications are considered as different pools. 

 

The application pool this year must be extremely high, and I can speak for the first years.  My 1st actually stated for my broader impacts that it wasn't competitive enough for this current application pool.  I was acknowledged for tutoring STEM fields, volunteering STEM programs and promoting them, and using my biodegrade project to provide free service to the community along with getting research done.  Plus, outlining a plan to get undergraduates involved into bioinformatics, but that still wasn't enough.  The other reviewer knocked me for not specifically tutoring elementary students.  

 

Honestly, from what I learn in this experience is that if I stay in my current field I'll be even more competitive in the next application pool since 2/3 reviewers believe I don't have adequate background in genomics to brag about that.  Seems like my diverse research background is a double-edge sword in that regard.  

[Scat Detector]

You say you were an undergraduate at UC Davis, where I'm assuming you feel like you were discriminated against for extra time on exams because of your dyslexia. I can tell you that you're wrong in this regard. I don't know about any other schools that you attended, but UC Davis is ridiculously accommodating of anyone with a disability, so any lack of extra time on an exam would be your fault for not filling out the necessary forms. All professors are required to give you extra time on exams if you have filled out the forms and are held to this standard. I have not heard of a single student not getting the extra time that they need at UC Davis.

 

Also, maybe you should focus more in your applications on your ability to lead and research experience. Yes, you got poor grades that may or may have not been due to a disability. But that doesn't mean that you need to drag on about that in your essays. One or two sentences will do. Also, I highly doubt that you're being discriminated against for dyslexia in the GRF review process. Focus on where else your application was weak and stop dragging on about this issue.

I never said that everybody at dais is a problem, nor did i say these issues all occurred at Davis.

 

Davis is one of the best schools about accommodations. However, there is a bad apple in every bunch no matter how good the system.

Theres new faculty that dont know the P&P's among other reasons. Some can be so caught up and stressed about funding 9since there job depends on it) that they overlook their responsibilities to provide a room and need reminded.

I do not mention any of these in my statements which you know nothing about. Have you read my stuff? NO!!!!

Do you know what I focus on? NO!!!!

Do you have any business making assumptionns about me? NO!!!!

 

Do you have any right to tell me WHY I got the grades I got? NO!!!

I have nearly all A's excluding courses I didnt get accommodations BITCH! HOW DARE YOU TELL ME WHY I GOT THE GRADES I DID!!!

DID I SAY I DID POORLY? NOOOOOO!!!!!

DO YOU HAVE ANY FUCKEN CLUE WHAT I FOCUSED ON?  NOOOOO!!!!!!

DID I EVER SAY I MENTIONED IT IN THE MANNER THAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING? Do you know anything about what I DID fouc on? NOOOOO!!!!

 

The only thing you got right was that YOU ARE ASSUMING!!!

So shut the effin ASSuming up and ONLY SAY WHAT YOU CONCRETELY KNOW AND KEEP YOUR DAMN SPECULATIONS OUT.

 

[Scat Detector]

I think educational BI stuff makes more sense in the personal statement than the research statement, but I guess it depends on what you say. You've got plenty of time to mull it over. Hope all this helps.

Your feedback is very helpful and much appreciated Marty3. Thank You!

And for the rest of you, its not appropriate to make accusations and assumptions about people in these forums. So if you want to shit talk go do it else where.

No one has any business making accusations or assumptions about ANYONE in here. Get lost!

Edited April 3, 2014 by InnovativeL

[Scat Detector]

Also, what? Your research proposal and personal statement should both include details on broader impacts. There is not one essay which gets all of your broader impacts information.

No kidding! I listed topics covered NOT "sections" to be filled out in the NSF application. Try to read more carefuly next time. What YOU need to do is STOP TWISTING MY WORDS and stop claiming that I said something that I never did. Go get your rocks off somewhere else!

Of course broader impact runs throughout. DUH!!! Thats why I didnt refer to them as "sections" but rather topics that need to be covered within and/or throughout depending on which youre talking about. Was that too abstract for you?

Is this you making assumptions again? Or no?

Take some advice: When in doubt, or when you do not concretely know something, ask more questions instead of speculating. Gather more info, don't spit clouds of assumptions about things you do not know, and read more carefully.

Edited April 3, 2014 by InnovativeL

[Scat Detector]

Now I believe I understand why you didn't receive the GRFP. Your research proposal could have been the most exquisite thing ever, but your letters must have attested to your horrible attitude. I am sorry that you are so ill and I hope that you find the help you so direly need.

I have glowing letters of rec thank you. Is this where you go to try and bully people when you feel insecure with yourself?

[Eigen]

Please stay on topic and be reasonable with your responses here, all. I know everyone's stress level is high at this point in the season, but there's no reason for rants, tirades, or name calling. 

 

Warnings issued for inappropriate behavior. 

[upretisr]

Got it! Undergrad first time applied! E/E E/E VD/E. No publications, low GPA (3.7). Reviewers talked about how my personal experience has influenced my field of choice and how recommendations, proposal and my field of choice all synced. Undergrad research for 3 years. Honestly I was not expecting it! 

[stmwap]

 low GPA (3.7)

This is not a low GPA.

[upretisr]

This is not a low GPA.

I mean, not the greatest. I kind of feel bad seeing people with 4.0 not getting it!

[loginofpscl]

Got it with a 3.5-- all I learned is that GPA is a minor factor compared to many others.

[chrissytine]

Got it with a 3.5-- all I learned is that GPA is a minor factor compared to many others.

 

Agreed. I received a fellowship with a 3.35 GPA, albeit I have 1 publication, 1 in review, 1 in prep, and 8 conference proceedings. There are ways to balance it out. Only one reviewer mentioned that I had a few "mediocre" grades, and instead focused on my clear research experience and demonstrated ability to write technical papers, etc.

[mdog3000]

This is why I am upset. I have several first author papers published, tons of conference presentations and I'm receiving two separate bachelor degrees (in 4 years) with a 4.0 and didnt get an award. I am at least thankful though for the members of this board who have made suggestions about bolding important aspects of the proposal, as mine would have benefited from that.

[stmwap]

This is why I am upset. I have several first author papers published, tons of conference presentations and I'm receiving two separate bachelor degrees (in 4 years) with a 4.0 and didnt get an award. I am at least thankful though for the members of this board who have made suggestions about bolding important aspects of the proposal, as mine would have benefited from that.

Bolding important aspects of the proposal isn't everything.  I did it (carefully) and I still didn't get anything - and it was obvious that reviewers didn't even read some of the things that were in bold.  I have figured out how I'm going to improve my application for next year, though.  My comments from reviewers were pretty much all positive even though my scores were mediocre (VG/G, G/G, G/VG), but there were some subtle things they said I can do to better my application (i.e. I have been and am involved with quite a few activities that are good examples of "broader impacts" but I need to do a better job of explaining why they're important).  

[chrissytine]

This is why I am upset. I have several first author papers published, tons of conference presentations and I'm receiving two separate bachelor degrees (in 4 years) with a 4.0 and didnt get an award. I am at least thankful though for the members of this board who have made suggestions about bolding important aspects of the proposal, as mine would have benefited from that.

I'm sure you realize this, but the fellowship goes beyond the scope of having a perfect GPA and tons of publications. I also held a position at USGS for 2 years, completed a NSF REU, worked in my field as an undergrad for 4 years...everyone has a different story. I think that in my case having them to corroborate my IM was very beneficial, but for most it probably just isn't enough by itself to make you stand out. I also think it's acceptable to have a lower GPA in my field. I actually merely listed my conference proceedings/pubs at the end of my essay with citations. I focused more on what I learned from each experience rather than the fact that I had presented at several conferences, published papers...I did find a way to tie them into my personal statement, just was never the focus of any portion of my essay.

My BI section was "the most remarkable portion of my application". Based on my reviews, they take it very seriously.

[marty3]

I fully agree with Chrissytine. Mdog3000, best of luck with the Fulbright application. Winning that will really help future applications stand out. But also realize that all fellowships are hit and miss. Others can just be less frustrating (in some ways) because they don't provide review. And bold IM stuff as well, not just BI.

[immunology_nonmodel]

For what it's worth, I graduated from undergrad in 2008 with one pub., went to grad PhD for genomics/oceanography but dropped out due to poor program with full support from academic advisors funded under NSF, lived abroad as science teacher to present, and moving back to US for Ph.D. in biomed. Total publications 2, 2 in prep.

 

Also submitted extenuating circumstances essay to describe non-traditional background, previous challenges, and discrimination under the Defense of Marriage Act that led to my exile from the U.S. with my foreign spouse. In other words, LGBTQ friendly reviewers. Reviewer 3 made me very happy. 

 

Awarded/Recommended

 

Reviewer 1 VG/E:

IM:

Applicant shows a strong commitment to research studies and has applied his skills at many research locations. He has contributed to publications and is highly recommended. One thing that is not clear is how or where the student wishes to continue his research. The area is quite specialized and a potential mentor or university where the research might be conducted were not put forth. It is not unusual for students to describe where they would like to do research whether or not they have been admitted to a program. Providing information about where he plans to do graduate work would have improved this application

BI:

Broader impacts of pursuing [very specific topic removed] is apparent and well articulated by the applicant. The applicant also has continued to engage in teaching, including bridging communication between young students and university faculty. He has a record of engaging the community with his science.

Summary: 

This is an interesting research proposal from an applicant who has interest in coral reef biology, and wishes

to continue his research after leaving a troubled graduate program, and moving abroad for personal reasons.

What is challenging to gauge is that his past research experience is highly specialized and whether a suitable

graduate program can be found to match his interests. The application would be strengthened if a university

program were identied as a place of interest and some communication had been established.

 

Reviewer 2 E/E:

IM:

Proposed research plan is nicely presented and application provides documentation of laboratory potential

and success in the form publications and letters of recommendation.

BI: 

Applicant's research has mutliple broad impacts with regard to biodiversity, ecosystems and local economies.

Applicant has also been very active with regard to education of children and adults with respect to the

importance of maintaining healthy coral reefs.

Summary:

Applicant conveys a great sense of passion and energy in his application. He is clearly committed to this

work and circumstances have led him to strike a nice balance between research and education endeavors.

 

Reviewer 3 E/E:

IM:

The research plan is innovative. The candidate proposes to use modern molecular biology techniques to

study coral health and the response to stress. The project is very well conceived and has the support of

expert collaborators.

BI:

The research plan has great broad impacts by developing methods to monitor coral health and overall

environmental changes. The candidate has demonstrated dedication to improving society on many fronts.

He has been very active in outreach activities to the public and in particular to school children for many

years. The application outlines mulitple pathways for continued outreach activities.

Summary:

The candidate is dedicated to science and the benet of society. He has shown perseverance in his question for

science through many adverse circumstances. The letters of support are fantastic. The scientic environment

is excellent. His research plan is cutting edge and strong. The examples of outreach and giving back to society

are unsurpassed.

 

[BioBum]

I would like to chime in about the low GPA issue. I graduated in 2011 with a 2.79 GPA. I received E/E, VG/VG, and G/G. For what it's worth, 2 days after graduating I had a job in my field and have been employed steadily with 4 major research universities in that time. Additionally, I have one publication out and two more in prep. Only the G/G reviewer made any comment at all about the GPA. I suspect that the GPA ruled me out immediately in his/her eyes. I did have extenuating circumstances involved with my low GPA. Family issues, depression, death of a close friend, etc etc. it was one tragic event after another for the first 2.5 years of my college career. Finally, during my last semester and a half I pulled it together and raised my GPA from a 1.8 to a 2.79 at an academically rigorous university. While GPA for that one reviewer may have a been a deal breaker, clearly for the other two my actions since then have proven my abilities as a scientist. The E/E reviewer recommended me for funding.

Don't focus too heavily on GPA. If you've got a story to back your low GPA and the science cred along with a kick ass proposal the GPA shouldn't be a huge issue. Anywho, that's my two cents.

Good luck to all of those applying next year.

[juilletmercredi]

Congratulations to all the awardees and the HMs!

 

Yes, I had a 3.4 GPA in undergrad, and not in a field where lower GPAs are common/acceptable (psychology).  I was an NSF fellow from 2010-2013.  So your GPA is only one small part of the application - especially if you are a graduate student.  I was a second-year graduate student so my undergrad GPA became less salient.  It also varies from reviewer to reviewer - reviewers care a lot about it, and some reviewers think it's mostly irrelevant.

 

But you know, that brings me to the point that I wanted to make - that's science in general.  Pretty much everything you do from here on out is going to be judged by 3-4 of your peers - your conference abstracts, your papers for publication, your grant proposals, your job applications, your tenure decisions, your promotions.  EVERYTHING.  And for most of them, you won't get detailed comments/feedback because your peers are extremely busy and are reviewing whatever it is between trying to run their own careers.  Now is the time to develop a thick skin!  You're going to face a lot of rejection, and some of it will seem arbitrary or unfair.

 

Part of being a successful scientist is being able to remind yourself that you're awesome, remind yourself that your worth isn't connected to what Reviewer #2 thinks about your application, then pick yourself up and work on whatever thing it is got rejected and make it better.   Often it will seem like Reviewer #3 didn't really read your application or that Reviewer #1 misunderstood the core part of your paper.  Part of our jobs as scientists is to get frustrated but then use that frustration to figure out how to make it even MORE clear what you are trying to say.  (And FWIW, most scientists seem to actively skim rather than deeply read most scientific papers, so if the reviewers are confused chances are a general reader will be too.)

 

Also, granting organizations have priorities.  The NSF has funding priorities.  They openly state that they want to increase the diversity of the science workforce, so it makes sense that they want to award their fellowships not just to outstanding researchers but also to outstanding researchers who are invested in increasing the diversity of scientists.  You don't have to be a minority or a woman to do that, though; you just have to show evidence that you are reaching out to diverse groups and that you value diverse voices and perspectives in science.  Similarly, the NSF places a huge priority on disseminating scientific research to the general public because it's a taxpayer-funded agency.  So the question becomes, why should Joe the Plumber supporting his 4 kids in rural Ohio care about your research?  He's paying the taxes that support your fellowship.  What's it going to do for him - and for the millions of Americans who will never read your papers and will probably never hear of you even if you become a famous scientist?  I bet you most people don't know the names of the folks who sequenced the genome or invented the fMRI scanner or realized that racism and stereotyping have huge impacts on children's achievement in school, but they still had a huge impact on the lives of every day non-scientists.

[MrRoots]

Not recommended: E/VG, G/G, G/F. As other people have griped about, my proposal was misread by one reviewer. Not sure if this is my fault or the fault of reviewers reading too fast.

 

Broader impacts was definitely my problem area. To future applicants: add even more than you'd think you'd need to make your case for broader impacts! ALSO: to future psych applicants, a reviewer had an issue with my studies using student samples. I would make sure to propose at least one study with a more diverse sample. 

 

Anyway, Congrats to all fellows! You deserve a BIG congrats because I get the sense that this year was particularly competitive. All of my peers who applied got nada also....

 

 

 

I feel like the BI section is so subjective. As a former Peace Corps Volunteer and years of domestic community outreach in the policy arena (switching to biophysical sciences) I am not really sure how much more robust a person can get as it relates to broader impacts and/or the potential for future broader impacts. I had a few criticisms about my BI not being explicit enough about how I would include women and other underrepresented groups. The final reviewer said that I didn't address the broader impacts beyond the applied value of my work. The BI portion of my research was focused on whether different agronomic management systems would be able to increase yield/livelihoods for smallholder farmers and involving the community in the experimental design setup as well as data collection (the basic science questions were related to mechanisms surrounding N cycling). Anyhow; I recognize that the IM of my application may not be competitive with others but its really difficult to believe that anyone who has worked on the front lines of domestic or international development would not have the potential to continue to do so in the future would not inherently have a competitive BI. Anyhow, just my rant; I guess working with communities to produce more food and understand the mechanisms behind management systems just isn't BI enough for some.

 

I guess the comments are the double edged sword compared to other grants that we apply for. We want them but when we get them were can't understand how they didn't see that our proposals were the best thing ever?! LoL good luck to everyone next year and congrats to the rest!

[jelewis]

Does anyone know if it's possible to see numbers about how many applicants there were per field, or better, sub-field?

[closetchem]

You can go here:   https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/grfp/AwardeeList.do?method=loadAwardeeList

 

Then organize by field and scroll through to your field of interest.

 

**Edit: sorry, I see now you wanted applicants. I don't think that information is released to the general public. 

Edited April 7, 2014 by closetchem

[jelewis]

Thanks anyways closetchem!!