NSF GRFP 2013-14

[jmu]

 

Yeah, I'm going to try to find a way to better address this next year.  It seemed to me that this reviewer actually was looking for me to be underrepresented, from the wording. Maybe I was being too bitter.

 

I didn't read it that way, FWIW. They seemed concerned that you didn't directly address disseminating your research outside of existing academic circles and that you didn't mention explicitly how your research might include or benefit underrepresented peoples. They want specificity and aren't often going to read too deeply into your essays so you need to be clear. Simply presenting and publishing your research is not enough for BI and the reviewer may have included it in their consideration of IM and felt that, without it, you really had minimal BI.

Edited April 2, 2014 by jmu

[roboticsapplicant]

 

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?

 

It's been shown that women (and I believe minorities) are more self-selecting.

[disqussion]

So I just got off the phone with NSF about my reviewer comments because two of my reviews are missing. I'm one of the rare ones who got four reviews (I guess this is more common among people doing interdisciplinary projects, according to NSF person.) NSF told me they have no way of retrieving the other two sets of comments, which they say were uploaded unsuccessfully by the reviewers. MAJOR BUMMER, especially since one of my commenters provided virtually no feedback, exceptive a few positive comments. ACK.

[schroedingersmeerkat]

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. 

 

When you are viewing the awardee or HM list, there is an option below to export to Excel. You can sort by any of the columns and easily count the number of awardees in a field without clicking through page after page.

[Wander]

Hi all,

 

I was offered the award, and have found these forums helpful in putting together my application, so I wanted to share my results and some of what seemed to work for me (I'm in the field of Earth Sciences, applied in  Geosciences - Climate and Large-Scale Atmospheric Dynamics)

 

E/E, VG/E, E/E

 

Past Research:

I listed my publications that had been published as well as those that had been submitted. I think this was important because I had three submitted papers, which shows continued research productivity.

EDIT: I clearly listed the submitted publications as such

 

 

Outreach:

I listed specific, detailed proposal for outreach. (i.e. working with X school to develop an after-school program with Y as an example project, building on my previous experience of Z)

 

Proposed Research:

I cut the length to organize it more clearly and included a figure of some of the preliminary data analysis. Although I really had to lose quite a bit of text for the figure, I think this was crucial for me for a couple of reasons. 1) reviewers skim your proposal (think maybe a handful of minutes per proposal) 2) It show you're capable of working with data and will set your proposal apart 3) it conveys a lot of information at a glance (if done well).

 

Style:

I put a few (maybe ~7) key phrases or sentences in bold in my personal statement, as well as my hypothesis and specific goals in my proposed research. I think it is always critical to remember that each reviewer only has a few minutes to read what you spent months to prepare. Make sure they read the critical parts in case they are pressed for time.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Wander

[loginofpscl]

Were fellows competing within Fields of Study or in the wider category? For example, Chemistry had 174 awards and can be divided to Synthesis, Catalysis, etc... were awards weighed against other applicants in the same subdivision, or in Chemistry overall?

 

In addition, were the awards equally distributed across all eligible years? I'm asking if the 174 awards were divvied up threeways and 58 awards were reserved for senior undergraduates, 58 for first year grads, etc...

Edited April 2, 2014 by loginofpscl

[troopiedoop]

Just got the DOE CSGF. Maybe I should stop complaining about the NSF review process.

[olorwen]

Hi all,

 

I was offered the award, and have found these forums helpful in putting together my application, so I wanted to share my results and some of what seemed to work for me (I'm in the field of Earth Sciences, applied in  Geosciences - Climate and Large-Scale Atmospheric Dynamics)

 

It seems that strategy really pays off; from what I can tell, the difference between my HM last year and my award this year was specificity and style. Wander and I seem to have had a lot of crossover in our approaches. 

 

For reference, I got E/E, E/E, VG/VG in Engineering - Mechanical. 

 

Style

In both my research proposal and my personal statement, I had a clear, titled, bolded section about Broader Impacts, so no one could miss them. In the research proposal, I went one further, and broke up the rest into a general overview section and a specific research plan. I also bolded key phrases in my research proposal to highlight my research question and the specific steps I plan to take to address the question. And, I made space for a figure to show the proposed research apparatus, which is easiest to explain pictorially. Also, I think that figures stick with you better, making it more likely that your application will stand out amidst the sea of text that they have to read.

 

Specificity in Broader Impacts

For both Broader Impacts sections, I highlighted specific activities I have done and plan to do. In the research proposal, I mentioned specific outreach programs and made a case for why my research is well-suited to that kind of outreach. In the personal statement, I additionally highlighted active and/or leadership roles in the activities I considered Broader Impacts. It's really essential to be clear how much you have done and how important it is - you have to sell yourself (without exaggerating).  If you tutored, how much did you tutor, and did you see positive effects for your students? If you made some sort of change in your community, what exactly did you do?

 

Specificity in Intellectual Merit

I think it's really important to be incredibly specific about your plan to complete your proposed research. Break it into logical steps, name specific technologies you plan to use. Say what you do with the results of your research, going forward. In your personal statement, make sure you state the point of every topic you write about. Can you point to the difference your research made? Is someone continuing your work? Did it get published? Did you learn something important that informed your later research or education choices?

 

Structure

I planned for the reviewers to be lazily skimming, so I made sure that, in both statements, you could understand the whole story if you only read the first and last sentences. This meant that, in the personal statement, my first sentences introduce whatever the paragraph is about, and the last sentences tell what came of whatever that paragraph was about. For example, when talking about past research, I introduced a research project by telling when it was and what its topic was, and I ended the paragraph by talking about the publication.

[PrettyLittleProtist]

I second Wander and olorwen's advice.  My school has a grant-writing class specifically geared toward NSF, which makes mention of all of these things.

 

Another point I wanted to add is the use of empty space.  I know it seems paradoxical to cut parts of your proposal so that you can put a line in between paragraphs or in between sections, but it really improves readability.  Considering how many of these proposals each reviewer has to read, they are bound to skim over some of them.  Anything you can do to make sure yours is more likely to be read will help in the long run.

[Scat Detector]

Yes, you will only be competing against other second year graduate students.  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.  

 

 

I don't think there's any real way to know this, but I wouldn't imagine it would make much of an impact.  Maybe if they're comparing two otherwise equal candidates and one has a disability they will go with that one.  But who knows. 

 

 

That's disappointing.  I have no publications and it's unlikely that I'll have any before next year (I'm a first year grad student).  

My first application round in 2010 for the 2011 year, I was told NO PUBLICATIONS and ALL rejected me. All but one rejected me but it turns out I SHOULD have rejected them, but discovered too too late what a shitty progarm I ended up in. So now, I reapplied to every single school that rejected me WHILE finishing my thesis and discussing my research in my statement and AGAIN REJECTED from 100% of the PhD programs since it was a masters that accepted me the first time.

NOW AGAIN they say you have no publications.

 

As a UC Davis undergrad alumni I was still rejected twice from 3 programs and other schools.

NOW if you have no publications and can get into a masters program BE SURE TO DO YOUR THESIS AS YOUR OWN PERSONAL PROJECT. As long as the data is YOUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERRTY AND NOT SOMEONE ELSES ...... YOU CAN PUBLISH

 

Now that im 100% rejected, time to hit the conference circuit where publishers are dying to publish your next paper. Poster presentations and networking and SHMOOOOOOOZING MY WAY TO A PhD

Edited April 3, 2014 by InnovativeL

[Scat Detector]

Yes, you will only be competing against other second year graduate students.  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.  

 

 

I don't think there's any real way to know this, but I wouldn't imagine it would make much of an impact.  Maybe if they're comparing two otherwise equal candidates and one has a disability they will go with that one.  But who knows. 

 

 

That's disappointing.  I have no publications and it's unlikely that I'll have any before next year (I'm a first year grad student).  

My first application round in 2010 for the 2011 year, I was told NO PUBLICATIONS and ALL rejected me. All but one rejected me but it turns out I SHLOUD have rejected them, but discovered too too late what a shitty progrm I ended up in. So no I reapplied to ev

 

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.

I applied for NSF GRFP twice and it really seems to depend on WHO is reviewing your app with NSF. I discussed my learning disability and how i overcame it and provided precise examples where my unique experiences ggave em the tools and empathy to help encourage and inspire others while tutoring science courses to other college students.

-The 1st app it was received positively

-the 2nd time around they pretty much said "intellectual Merit" was "very poor" for the named category of merit. Of course my transcripts had not changed, my letters of rec were strong and not much different. The primary difference was WHICH REVIEWERS REVIEWED my info.

 

On personal statements to grad studies admission committees I now do not mention it at all. 3 of the programs wouldnt even review my app after reading DISABILITY and refunded (not by my choice) my app fee.

 

The one that accepted me to the masters program I omitted my disability and was later discriminated and told "IF I KNEW YOU HAD A DISABILITY, I WOULD HAVE NEVER LET YOU IN THIS PROGRAM WITH YOUR PROBLEM" (ie required extended time on exams and thats it).

 

Its a harsh vicious cruel evil world! FAKE IT TIL YOU MAKE IT! Often time a disability isnt even accepted as a form of "Under-represented group" Even those programs turn people away in a discriminatory fashion.

[Eigen]

Just another note:

 

For all of you saying you re-submitted an app that was reviewed with high marks in a past year that did worse this year, remember that each year the standards to which you are held go up quite sharply, as does the competition. 

 

It's not necessarily just a reviewer difference. 

[Scat Detector]

Just another note:

 

For all of you saying you re-submitted an app that was reviewed with high marks in a past year that did worse this year, remember that each year the standards to which you are held go up quite sharply, as does the competition. 

 

It's not necessarily just a reviewer difference. 

Indeed thats true. I was simply showing that a disabiity can be viewed as either positive or negative and that the matter of a disabiity specifically is a review-by-review basis as to if its viewed as good or bad. In my case I was showing that to be true. thats not without accounting for increasing standards. Of course that cannot be disregarded and there are many reasons to not be funded by NSF, the rising stakes and increased competition being part of that.

 

- I however was only making reference to the mentioning of including the mention od a disability versus excluding it from your statement as components of your overall application package.

[kechemukwa]

 I however was only making reference to the mentioning of including the mention od a disability versus excluding it from your statement as components of your overall application package.

I think it depends on the severity of the disability and how you package it. Mentioning I how overcame my own learning disadvatage (ADHD) in a personal statement got me interviews for a fully funded PhD program. I imagine that overcoming more severe disadvantages may make you a "high risk/high reward" scenario, which is not what reviewers want when deciding who to give $100,000+ to.

[Scat Detector]

I think it depends on the severity of the disability and how you package it. Mentioning I how overcame my own learning disadvatage (ADHD) in a personal statement got me interviews for a fully funded PhD program. I imagine that overcoming more severe disadvantages may make you a "high risk/high reward" scenario, which is not what reviewers want when deciding who to give $100,000+ to.

 

Its good to know that simply saying dsability isn't what freaked people out in my apps with NSF or grad programs.

 

I have dyslexia which is very simple and pretty straight forward. However the concept of extra time on exams has lead many course instructors to flat out refuse to provide the test time that im entitled to which lead to lower grades when only half the exam is complete by the time they inappropriately alotted by refusing to give my entitled extended time.

 

These bastards lead to B's instead of A's and C's instead of B's which f%*ked my GPA.

Its tough to say that in a statement without sounding bitter.

 

Thanks for the hope. However, how anyone is suppose to write those above details in a pleasant tone -- Quite difficult.

Edited April 3, 2014 by InnovativeL

[marty3]

Its good to know that simply saying dsability isn't what freaked people out in my apps with NSF or grad programs.

 

I have dyslexia which is very simple and pretty straight forward. However the concept of extra time on exams has lead many course instructors to flat out refuse to provide the test time that im entitled to which lead to lower grades when only half the exam is complete by the time they inappropriately alotted by refusing to give my entitled extended time.

 

These bastards lead to B's instead of A's and C's instead of B's which f%*ked my GPA.

Its tough to say that in a statement without sounding bitter.

 

Thanks for the hope. However, how anyone is suppose to write those above details in a pleasant tone -- Quite difficult.

 

Wow, I'm shocked to hear your course instructors won't give you the necessary time. If it happens again try talking to the deans at your school, or anyone who has more power than your course instructors. Legally they cannot deny you accommodations, provided you have the appropriate documentation and follow whatever rules for notifying profs and such. I've been given attitude from time to time, but never (since high school) denied accommodations.

 

In regards to NSF my best advice is to limit discussion in your essays to personal experiences you have overcome, but leave these details of grades to professors who know you well. Perhaps a research advisor who knows from first hand experience that your grades don't reflect what you actually know. I generally ask at least 1 of my references to discuss this explicitly, and it has worked very well for me in the past.

Edited April 3, 2014 by marty3

[Scat Detector]

Wow, I'm shocked to hear your course instructors won't give you the necessary time. If it happens again try talking to the deans at your school, or anyone who has more power than your course instructors. Legally they cannot deny you accommodations, provided you have the appropriate documentation and follow whatever rules for notifying profs and such. I've been given attitude from time to time, but never (since high school) denied accommodations.

 

In regards to NSF my best advice is to limit your essays to personal experiences you have overcome, but leave these details of grades to professors who know you well. Perhaps a research advisor who knows from first hand experience that your grades don't reflect what you actually know. I generally ask at least 1 of my references to discuss this explicitly, and it has worked very well for me in the past.

 

Yeah, I try to go to dept chairs in one instance the chair never answers emails from students and even according to others is the type to shove matters under the carpet.

In a few other instances I had to change schools 3 times when i was at a community college to complete O-Chem, Physics and Gen-Inorganic Chem and Calc and Bio series due to being told "People with disabilities dont belong in science classes" and then was dropped from the course against my will.

 

There were several other instances at the university level as well. No action ever happens and your time investment to get any outcome requires the time consuming efforts more so than a job that it takes everything away from focusing on academics. The toll it takes is worse than having a parent die -- in the context of "distress level that impacts academics" in a similar fashion

 

I would flat out tell professors if it had to be said "Not providing extended time on this exam is a violation of any students constitutional rights to equal access to education. Are you aware that its against the law?" I explained.  Sometimes this set them straight when they didnt take it serious. Other times professors are just ignorant law breakers.

 

Schools have to have the proper "P&P's" Policies and procedures in order to hold people accountable. Unfortunately theses "Procedures" take far longer than the school term and before you know it youre stuck with a grade that has nothing to do woth academic performance. Usually it gets addressed but not in time for an exam or the sorts of permanent damage to the grade.

I hadnt thought to have a LOR discuss this topic on how my transcripts do not accurately represent the extent of my ability to do well and succeed in ZXY program. I usually added a short one sentence blurb to that effect. GOOD IDEA! for the LOR to include that in one. I knew about how certain things are better discussed in an LOR by someone else instead of the applicant. I hadn't thought this to be one of those things.

I usually focused on how my experiences have helped inspire others (my tutees, as a tutor) to persevere and so they didnt drop out via my perspective which helped them. I tried levereging broader impact with a more elaborate version of this example.

 

Maybe I need to reorganize what goes in the broader impacts and move it to my statement portion.

The info covered in the NSF package includes

-personal statement, BI related details

-broader impact related details

-the research proposal itself

Maybe I need this info in my BI paragraphs rather than my broader impacts paragraphs

What do you think?

Edited April 3, 2014 by InnovativeL

[archaeo-nemesis]

When you are viewing the awardee or HM list, there is an option below to export to Excel. You can sort by any of the columns and easily count the number of awardees in a field without clicking through page after page.

Thank you! 

[marty3]

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.

[Monochrome Spring]

 

 

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.

[Monochrome Spring]

Maybe I need to reorganize what goes in the broader impacts and move it to my statement portion.

The info covered in the NSF package includes

-personal statement, BI related details

-broader impact related details

-the research proposal itself

Maybe I need this info in my BI paragraphs rather than my broader impacts paragraphs

What do you think?

 

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.

[Igotnothin]

Just another note:

 

For all of you saying you re-submitted an app that was reviewed with high marks in a past year that did worse this year, remember that each year the standards to which you are held go up quite sharply, as does the competition. 

 

It's not necessarily just a reviewer difference. 

 

I would disagree. Every year about 1 in 6 or 1 in 7 applicants get the award. I don't know of any evidence that grad students as a whole (or GRFP applicants) are on some sort of sharp ascent in terms of publications or other credentials. Reviewer variability is the more plausible explanation for somebody submitting a very similar application two years in a row and going from "Excellent" to "Fair."

[Monochrome Spring]

I would disagree. Every year about 1 in 6 or 1 in 7 applicants get the award. I don't know of any evidence that grad students as a whole (or GRFP applicants) are on some sort of sharp ascent in terms of publications or other credentials. Reviewer variability is the more plausible explanation for somebody submitting a very similar application two years in a row and going from "Excellent" to "Fair."

 

Eigen was stating that there are other factors to consider, other than the reviewer heterogeneity, since that seems to be what most of the posters in this thread lament about. It is expected that you should have more research experience (and possibly more publications and conferences), as well as more outreach, with each year. Therefore, an application that you submitted last year, which would only list your experiences from then, will not be as competitive as someone's application that discusses new research and outreach experiences. It's not to say that this increase in difficulty is the only reason for changes in reviews from year-to-years, but it can be a factor.

[Igotnothin]

Eigen was stating that there are other factors to consider, other than the reviewer heterogeneity, since that seems to be what most of the posters in this thread lament about. It is expected that you should have more research experience (and possibly more publications and conferences), as well as more outreach, with each year. Therefore, an application that you submitted last year, which would only list your experiences from then, will not be as competitive as someone's application that discusses new research and outreach experiences. It's not to say that this increase in difficulty is the only reason for changes in reviews from year-to-years, but it can be a factor.

 

That's a good point. I wonder if reviewers of second- or third-year applicants actually have all of the previous applications available? Given their time constraints I would expect only the most attentive reviewer would look at previous years' materials and gauge improvements. Also the reviews posted here from multi-year applicants do not suggest that the issues raised from reviewers were related to insufficient progress from previous years, at least not the ones that I have seen.

[Monochrome Spring]

That's a good point. I wonder if reviewers of second- or third-year applicants actually have all of the previous applications available? Given their time constraints I would expect only the most attentive reviewer would look at previous years' materials and gauge improvements. Also the reviews posted here from multi-year applicants do not suggest that the issues raised from reviewers were related to insufficient progress from previous years, at least not the ones that I have seen.

 

I'm almost certain that they don't have any application materials from prior years. even if they did, they would not want to read through them, given the time constraints.