NSF GRFP 2013-14

[psychgurl]

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....

[iheartplants]

Not awarded: E/E, VG/E, VG/G....sigh. Reviewer 3 just didn't get me lol. C'est la vie.

[HockeyNerd]

Not the end of the world folks.  There are numerous other awards out there and if anything (whether you agree with them or not) the review comments can only help you going forward.

 

 

I hate how angry and entitled some people are on this thread. Just be glad you get back feedback, but recognize that it's still a crap-shoot process.

 

 

These two -

The comments can only help you if you actually receive helpful comments. Understanding the blood, sweat and tears that go into these applications, I understand where people get angry when they recieve entirely unhelpful comments or non at all. 

[chemgradugaua]

I was awarded!!

 

E/E

E/E

E/E

 

I was surprised because I had a big 0 publications. I did have 7 presentations though (some even award winning). 

I also had a 4.0 GPA from undergrad and a lot of "broader impact" activities (mentoring underprivileged kids, mentoring freshman, mentoring minority students in the Summer Bridge program, serving on graduate panels, helping recruit students into the sciences, outreach activities). I think that helped a lot. Also, my recommendations were apparently outstanding, even though I have never seen them. 

 

Anyways, I'm so excited! It's been quite a journey with you guys the past few weeks. I just need a nap right now. 

[warbrain]

I didn't get it for Computer Science, my reviews were

 

VG/G E/VG VG/VG

 

I'm actually surprisingly okay with this, my reviews were a lot more positive than last year (when I got VG/VG and F/F) even though I hadn't really done anything in the past year cuz of senioritis and stuff.  I also anticipated the negative comments I got this year, which made them easier to read.

 

Can someone explain the process in greater depth?  I assumed that those who got three reviews made it past the first cut, but it seems like that's not the case since some people with two reviewers got Honorable Mention.  And after the first cut, are all your reviews considered equally, or would more weight be placed on your third review, since the first two got you past the first cut anyways?

[mdog3000]

What exactly is there to be grateful for in these reviews that will help me in the future? All it says is that I am a great applicant that was recommended by two of my reviewers to receive a fellowship but didnt get it. I feel robbed because I go to a "easy" state school, versus the other students in my category who are all from ivy's/california schools. 

 

1)

Intellectual Merit Criterion

Overall Assessment of Intellectual Merit

Excellent

 

Explanation to Applicant

The applicant presents excellent academic credentials and strong evidence of a history of research, including

puboications in ungergraduate fora. The research plan is coherent and indicates excellent collaborative

opportunities. The references indicate strong support and enthusiam for this student's work.

 

Broader Impacts Criterion

Overall Assessment of Broader Impacts

Excellent

 

Explanation to Applicant

This applicant provides strong personal evidence of connection and passion to the research question and to

communicating science and his research ndings to other scientists and the community.

 

Summary Comments

Strong overall application, convincing this reader of likelihood of long term engagement in research with

important and broad implications .

 

2)

Overall Assessment of Intellectual Merit

Very Good

 

Explanation to Applicant

This applicant has demonstrated a good publication track record

 

Broader Impacts Criterion

Overall Assessment of Broader Impacts

Excellent

 

Explanation to Applicant

This applicant oers a big picture perspective

 

Summary Comments

This applicant shows potential as a fellowship recipient

 

3)

Overall Assessment of Intellectual Merit

Very Good

Explanation to Applicant

Very good research proposal.

 

Broader Impacts Criterion

Overall Assessment of Broader Impacts

Excellent

 

Explanation to Applicant

The proposed research has broader impacts!

 

Summary Comments

Excellent level 1 applicant! He is highly motivated.

[brownlee0182]

Not Recommended and only two reviews

 

F/F and E/E... The one who gave me F/F spelled "references" wrong. 

 

Two more shots.... 

[stmwap]

The one who gave me F/F spelled "references" wrong. 

 

My reviews are filled with spelling and grammatical errors.  

[DSYIII]

E/VG G/G G/G  Not awarded

 

Reviews were unfortunately not especially helpful.

 

The "the proposed research is not original" line is going to stick with me. I'm not sure if they were saying I plagiarized, or that the research had been done, but both are extremely false. 

 

Oh well, time to get published before next year's application.

[parkridge]

FYI: 

Welcome to the FastLane Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP).

 

 

• We are currently investigating reports concerning blank or missing reviews on certain GRFP Application Reviews. We are aware of the issue and are working to correct the problem as soon as possible. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Edited April 1, 2014 by parkridge

[jmu]

Some advice from those willing to give it. I'm wondering if someone can give me their interpretation of this feedback or let me know if my interpretation is off-base. The quote below seems to say that my work does have potential broader impacts but that the reviewer thinks my findings won't be what policy makers want to hear and thus the actual impacts will be lesser. I hinted at this in my proposal and stated that, while results would be shared with policy makers and development agencies, they would more importantly be shared with stakeholders and community-based organizations so that they might themselves address issues or pressure the government to address them.

 

The context is climate change and agricultural development and this reviewer rated my BI as 'Good.'

 

"The impacts on planning could be significant, though it is not entirely clear whether anyone there in positions of responsibility would be open to hearing/responding to the results of the research. This is a really interesting, and potentially very significant project on the political ecology of agricultural development and climate change. Less clear than it might be on exactly how the results of this research will (be able to) affect policy decisions."

[Urshilikai]

E/VG E/VG G/G Not Awarded

 

3rd submission and 2nd year grad student, last chance blown. The third reviewer's comments weren't relevant at all, he clearly didn't read or understand my essays--after 3 years of revisions and experience they were prose on par with Carl Sagan.

 

Just remember to vote in politicians who will actually understand the importance of, and fund, science... I blame the republicans for my loss.

[roboticsapplicant]

These two -

The comments can only help you if you actually receive helpful comments. Understanding the blood, sweat and tears that go into these applications, I understand where people get angry when they recieve entirely unhelpful comments or non at all. 

 

Yes, because every other application (whether it's to college, grad school, fellowships, or jobs) gives you helpful, detailied feedback about your strengths and weaknesses. /sarcasm

 

For the vast mjaority of things that people apply to, they get 0 feedback. In my mind, any feedback you get is a positive. And certainly, don't simply reject the feedback or deny it. Try to understand why the reviewer thinks what he wrote. That's the only way it'll be useful.

 

And if you think your feedback didn't address your application specifically or properly, maybe that means that you need to rethink how to write these statements for reviewers who are alloted just a few minutes per application. In previous years I had much denser statements. This year I made it less dense and easy to quickly read, and the results were positive.

[knightrunner]

Some advice from those willing to give it. I'm wondering if someone can give me their interpretation of this feedback or let me know if my interpretation is off-base. The quote below seems to say that my work does have potential broader impacts but that the reviewer thinks my findings won't be what policy makers want to hear and thus the actual impacts will be lesser. I hinted at this in my proposal and stated that, while results would be shared with policy makers and development agencies, they would more importantly be shared with stakeholders and community-based organizations so that they might themselves address issues or pressure the government to address them.

 

The context is climate change and agricultural development and this reviewer rated my BI as 'Good.'

 

"The impacts on planning could be significant, though it is not entirely clear whether anyone there in positions of responsibility would be open to hearing/responding to the results of the research. This is a really interesting, and potentially very significant project on the political ecology of agricultural development and climate change. Less clear than it might be on exactly how the results of this research will (be able to) affect policy decisions."

 

 

I think the statement is strait forward.  Basically, even though you might get interesting results no change will be done by the higher-ups.  I'm kind of curious how you wrote your personal statement to get that kind of response 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As for me I got NOT RECOMMENDED:

 

G/G

 

IM

Basically, my proposal is sophisticated compared to my background, and I probably didn't fully comprehend my approach.  They did note my presentations and scholarship winnings in the past.

BI

Not competitive compared to current application pool 

 

Summary:  I have potential.

 

F/G

 

IM

Again, my background is mixed.  This reviewer notes I did research in micro-degradation, marine ecology, and just started genomics which is the bases of my research.  This reviewer also mention that I have a huge mix since I also do have a nursing background.  My current research project will give interesting results.

BI

Notes all my community work involving undergrads and helping children and the community.

 

Summary:  Basically, I just started in this field and with more experience as a graduate student I will be very competitive and have potential to be a great applicant.

 

VG/G

 

IM

Should provided greater detail in proposal.

BI

Did not do outreach with elementary students

 

Summary: Should do outreach with elementary students.

 

Reviewer 1:  I can't believe this person thinks my approach is too complicated or advance with my background.  I wish this reviewer now can see me typing up my current manuscript based on the theory with what I proposed.  I'll be presenting this in San Diego for those who heard of this great conference.  

Reviewer 2:  Not much I can say about this since this person does seem a bit interested in my history, but only views me a starter.

Reviewer 3:  I wish this person can talk to Reviewer 2 since I did outreach to elementary students and 4 year olds.

Edited April 1, 2014 by knightrunner

[AutumnLover]

Might as well add my own results.  3rd time no luck, just a pat on the back.

 

HM

VG/VG E/E VG/VG

 

Our scholarship and grant office was very clear about how NSF looks at the GRFP.  According to them, NSFGRFP is about funding the person and funding the most diverse group possible. So when they are picking who is offered an award over some of the HM, they are picking on non-science related things like where you went to high school and what college you are at.  

 

Congrats to those of you who were awarded.  And to the rest, remember you scientific worth isn't measured by the results of one fellowship.

[Monochrome Spring]

Yes, because every other application (whether it's to college, grad school, fellowships, or jobs) gives you helpful, detailied feedback about your strengths and weaknesses. /sarcasm

 

For the vast mjaority of things that people apply to, they get 0 feedback. In my mind, any feedback you get is a positive. And certainly, don't simply reject the feedback or deny it. Try to understand why the reviewer thinks what he wrote. That's the only way it'll be useful.

 

And if you think your feedback didn't address your application specifically or properly, maybe that means that you need to rethink how to write these statements for reviewers who are alloted just a few minutes per application. In previous years I had much denser statements. This year I made it less dense and easy to quickly read, and the results were positive.

 

A lot of it is also in the lack of feedback that can actually be used for improvement. When reviewers consistently say "great outreach", "good broader impacts", etc. but they vary from E to G and there is nothing about improving to go beyond the lower scores, it makes you wonder what you're doing wrong or what you can improve. This is not positive feedback. This is an empty comment that doesn't help with improvement or explain the differences in scoring.

 

Yes, it's good to get feedback when a lot of applications don't give it to you, blah, blah, blah. A lot of my feedback was very helpful. But there are other applicants who only got the vague responses like I stated above but get varying scores without any notes for improvement.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Monochrome Spring

[marty3]

Does anyone know what reviewers are told to put in these "reviews"? I've applied twice now, and both times my reviews felt like lists of things I did well. Perhaps reviewers are only told to comment on what put an applicant above or below  a "good" score, rather than offer tips for improvement. This year I won and my "lists of things I did well" were just slightly longer than last year's "lists". Almost nothing changed in my application between years, either. Perhaps the only significant change was that I wrote in my personal statement that I had taken many grad level courses as an undergrad. The courses were already on my transcripts when I applied the first time, but nobody noticed it or commented on it until they read a paragraph about it. Now they all commented on it (very briefly, of course) and I went from E/VG/VG to E/E/E in my IM score.

 

All I can really recommend is read any review you can get your hands on and make sure you explicitly state the things that are viewed favorably. The only reason why I thought to talk about taking grad courses was because I read it in a review. Don't trust a prof to mention it in a rec letter either.

 

For anyone who feels they got shafted this year, apply again if you can. I too was furious last time when I didn't get it. I had a lot riding on winning a fellowship last year. On the bright side, it takes minimal effort reapply if you're confident in your application.

Edited April 1, 2014 by marty3

[roboticsapplicant]

A lot of it is also in the lack of feedback that can actually be used for improvement. When reviewers consistently say "great outreach", "good broader impacts", etc. but they vary from E to G and there is nothing about improving to go beyond the lower scores, it makes you wonder what you're doing wrong or what you can improve. This is not positive feedback. This is an empty comment that doesn't help with improvement or explain the differences in scoring.

 

Yes, it's good to get feedback when a lot of applications don't give it to you, blah, blah, blah. A lot of my feedback was very helpful. But there are other applicants who only got the vague responses like I stated above but get varying scores without any notes for improvement.

 

That's exactly why people say this is a crap-shoot process. It's not like we all didn't know that going in.

 

Getting feedback is just icing on the cake (where the cake is getting your application read and considered). Of course some people will get better feedback than others - there's no way to normalize reviewer comments across the board. But to despise NSF because your icing isn't thick enough (especially when most cakes have no icing at all) is wrong and entitled.

[Monochrome Spring]

That's exactly why people say this is a crap-shoot process. It's not like we all didn't know that going in.

 

Getting feedback is just icing on the cake (where the cake is getting your application read and considered). Of course some people will get better feedback than others - there's no way to normalize reviewer comments across the board. But to despise NSF because your icing isn't thick enough (especially when most cakes have no icing at all) is wrong and entitled.

 

I don't recall saying that I despise NSF because of my reviews.

[roboticsapplicant]

I don't recall saying that I despise NSF because of my reviews.

 

Not you. I'm addressing the people that have been saying things like: "omg I can't believe why my reviewers were too thick to understand how awesome I am."

 

Granted, that is a minority response on this thread, but I really don't like it.

[Chemil5000]

What if at one point all applicants have at least visited gradcafe "once"?  ... and only the ones who actually did good posted 

....hence "publication bias" O_O

In honor of "anti-publication bias":

VG/E  G/G VG/VG  - not awarded 

 

.... The blood loss is not that severe because of the helpful feedback - but =\

 

TILL NEXT YEAR!!!! (。^_・)ノ

[BioBum]

Reviewer 1: VG/VG

        Positive reviews
Reviewer 2: E/E
       Sung my praises and recommended me for funding 

Reviewer 3: G/G

       NO ORIGINAL FEEDBACK - this reviewer literally copy and pasted sections of my proposal and put those in. How is that even considered to be feedback. Did write "Low GPA". I suspect this is what brought me way down in his/her eyes for the IM section. Didn't seem to bother actually reading my application. 

Oh well. That's not stopping me from applying again next year and the year after that if need be. 

Congrats to all those that won. 

 

Edited April 1, 2014 by BioBum

[kap09c]

You people, who are down-voting the successful applicants, are acting really pathetic. Perhaps its that sour attitude you have that somehow cost you this award (and likely many opportunities in life). I wholeheartedly believed that I wasn't going to win an award, and with that I was ready to congratulate my friends that did because this is a really important stepping stone in academia. Get it together;  it's shameful. 

[agarcia59]

Awarded. 2nd year.

VG/VG
VG/VG
VG/VG

1 thing I did differently this year was drop my UG recommendation and had all 3 recommenders from my grad institution.
I think I got a good batch of reviewers. All noting research experience (even though I have 0 pubs, 2 presentations) and also noting not so competitive GPA. 
In BI, I showed serious initiative in promoting science outreach.

The 3rd reviewer practically worshipped the ground I walk on and really read my app in depth. Left a ~200 word summary noting all the strong points my app had.

 

Congrats to those awarded. To those not awarded, remember that your scientific worth is not valued by 1 fellowship. This can be a real crapshoot sometimes depending on the reviewer you get.

 

[rkty28]

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.

Edited April 1, 2014 by rkty28