NSF GRFP 2014-2015

[Vader Was Framed]

right - I do not have direct experience with that, however, I do not think that NSF would frown upon a great letter from someone who happens to be at another agency. In fact, it could be to your advantage that NSF sees you have worked in the past on work that is affiliated with other U.S. agencies. 

 

I have a silly question - do we not upload a CV for the fast lane application process? Or instead, are we limited to the entry fields for things like publications, awards, etc.? 

[waderpanda]

Hi everyone,

 

So this might be a little inane but is it appropriate to name professors and labs in the personal statement, like "I'm currently working with X professor at Y lab"? or should it be more general like, "I'm currently working as  a lab assistant on  a project regarding Z"? I don't think it's that big of a deal but I'm just very nervous about this whole process.

[Monochrome Spring]

Hi everyone,

 

So this might be a little inane but is it appropriate to name professors and labs in the personal statement, like "I'm currently working with X professor at Y lab"? or should it be more general like, "I'm currently working as  a lab assistant on  a project regarding Z"? I don't think it's that big of a deal but I'm just very nervous about this whole process.

 

Of course you can be specific. Say who you are working with and at what program.

[RP15]

Hello, I have a question.

 

What do I put in the "Proposed University or College" field under the "Proposed Graduate Study" ?

 

I am a senior applying to about 9 PhD programs, do I just choose one of the universities? What if put in a university and I don't get accepted, does it make a difference?

 

Thank you 

[ktk]

Above: Your school doesn't lock you in. Try to use that school's resources or unique advantages in your research statement though.

 

Ethics question: If it's possible for me to pursue my proposed research plan in my final semester of undergrad, is this ethical for me to still use this research plan in the GRFP application? I realize that this is just used as proof that I can do research but I'm curious now. And I could very well carry this research out next semester, I spent time on it and now I have a plan that I can carry out... Why not?

[rightleftmiddle]

Another last minute question (as we all scramble to make our applications as good as we can), if I am presenting at a conference in January, can I put that on my application in the education/work experience section? I assume I can because it's been accepted, and just put the date as in the future. Anyone have experience with this?

[marty3]

Ethics question: If it's possible for me to pursue my proposed research plan in my final semester of undergrad, is this ethical for me to still use this research plan in the GRFP application? I realize that this is just used as proof that I can do research but I'm curious now. And I could very well carry this research out next semester, I spent time on it and now I have a plan that I can carry out... Why not?

Well, you should be proposing a 5 year project, not a 1 semester project. I don't see any ethical dilemma here, provided the project's scope is that of a PhD project, that it is something you are interested in, and that it is something you could conceivably be doing in grad school.

[guttata]

Well, you should be proposing a 5 year project, not a 1 semester project. I don't see any ethical dilemma here, provided the project's scope is that of a PhD project, that it is something you are interested in, and that it is something you could conceivably be doing in grad school.

 

The purpose of the research proposal is not to lay out an entire dissertation but to prove that you can think critically, logically, and plan feasible and significant research projects.

[bathingintheneon]

One more quick thing for clarity: I actually used headings that said "Intellectual Merit" and "Broader Impact" in each section above. I used very small spacing between paragraphs to maximize words (set the font to size 4 and use one empty line between paragraphs). So it looked like this:

 

Graduate School: Advancing Research of Blah Blah Blah

Intellectual Merit: Blah blah I am so smart.

Broader Impact: Blah blah I will save our dying world. 

 

Next Section Title

Intellectual Merit:

Broader Impact:

 

And so on.

 

This is so funny/true.

[bathingintheneon]

Another last minute question (as we all scramble to make our applications as good as we can), if I am presenting at a conference in January, can I put that on my application in the education/work experience section? I assume I can because it's been accepted, and just put the date as in the future. Anyone have experience with this?

 I have several conference abstracts under review for presentation in March and April. You bet I'm putting them all down! You can write (forthcoming, 2015) or (under review, 2015) or something similar instead of the date. 

[bathingintheneon]

right - I do not have direct experience with that, however, I do not think that NSF would frown upon a great letter from someone who happens to be at another agency. In fact, it could be to your advantage that NSF sees you have worked in the past on work that is affiliated with other U.S. agencies. 

 

I have a silly question - do we not upload a CV for the fast lane application process? Or instead, are we limited to the entry fields for things like publications, awards, etc.? 

There's no place to upload a CV. You need to list everything in the entry fields.

 

Hello, I have a question.

 

What do I put in the "Proposed University or College" field under the "Proposed Graduate Study" ?

 

I am a senior applying to about 9 PhD programs, do I just choose one of the universities? What if put in a university and I don't get accepted, does it make a difference?

 

Thank you 

I applied last year (before getting into grad school). I just picked my top school to put in the "Proposed University" field. It won't make a difference whether you get the grant, but they will list it on the website if you get the award/HM. 

 

Hi everyone,

 

So this might be a little inane but is it appropriate to name professors and labs in the personal statement, like "I'm currently working with X professor at Y lab"? or should it be more general like, "I'm currently working as  a lab assistant on  a project regarding Z"? I don't think it's that big of a deal but I'm just very nervous about this whole process.

I named all of my professors, especially those who were going to write me letters. I figured it would help reviewers connect my research experiences to those LOR. I didn't put the names of the specific labs though (not enough room!).

[geographyrocks]

Ethics question: If it's possible for me to pursue my proposed research plan in my final semester of undergrad, is this ethical for me to still use this research plan in the GRFP application? I realize that this is just used as proof that I can do research but I'm curious now. And I could very well carry this research out next semester, I spent time on it and now I have a plan that I can carry out... Why not?

It is not unethical to continue research on something you've already started. 

 

 

Well, you should be proposing a 5 year project, not a 1 semester project. I don't see any ethical dilemma here, provided the project's scope is that of a PhD project, that it is something you are interested in, and that it is something you could conceivably be doing in grad school.

 

The purpose of the research proposal is not to lay out an entire dissertation but to prove that you can think critically, logically, and plan feasible and significant research projects.

 This is indeed the purpose, but your proposal needs have a larger scope than 1 semester or even 1 year.  The NSF funds research for 3 years so whatever you propose should be the equivalent of the money you are asking for. 

[Monochrome Spring]

It is not unethical to continue research on something you've already started. 

 

 This is indeed the purpose, but your proposal needs have a larger scope than 1 semester or even 1 year.  The NSF funds research for 3 years so whatever you propose should be the equivalent of the money you are asking for. 

 

I entirely disagree. The research proposal should be whatever time frame you need to complete a single project that you have the space to elaborate on enough to prove that you can "think critically, logically, and plan feasible and significant research projects" as Guttata stated. The research proposal should not be a summary of your entire dissertation plan, because you will certainly not be able to fit enough elaboration on theory, methods, etc. Even proposals for a single (possibly year-long) project have been criticized in reviews for not having enough detailed methods. And some projects simply don't take the 3-year timeframe. The NSF GRF does not fund your research for 3 years. It funds you as a researcher for 3 years worth of stipend so you can focus on research, instead of TAships and RAships. The GRF funds the researcher, not the project, so you should not try to match your proposal to the length of the funding. 

[marty3]

The purpose of the research proposal is not to lay out an entire dissertation but to prove that you can think critically, logically, and plan feasible and significant research projects.

 

 

At least to me, proposing a 5-year project is very different from laying out an entire dissertation.

[Monochrome Spring]

At least to me, proposing a 5-year project is very different from laying out an entire dissertation.

 

Some people won't have a 5-year project at all and may have multiple 1-year projects. The point is the you should be detailing a single project (or if you have something like a field and greenhouse component, then a pair of parallel projects), not something as immense as an entire dissertation.

[marty3]

Some people won't have a 5-year project at all and may have multiple 1-year projects. The point is the you should be detailing a single project (or if you have a field and greenhouse component, then a pair of parallel projects), not something as immense as an entire dissertation.

 

Sure, but even in detailing a single 1-year project, you should highlight future work that could occupy you for the future. If you knew exactly what you'd be researching and exactly how you'd do it for 5 years, then that would be outlining a dissertation. But if you detail a single short project, and think about future work (which can entirely hinge on outcomes of preliminary work, of course), then you would be "[proving] that you can think critically, logically, and plan feasible and significant research projects" as Guttata said. That, to me, is proposing a 5-year project. Proposing doesn't mean you know exactly what to do and how to do it. It just means that you have thought about it critically.

 

I agree with you all way more than I think you think I do.

Edited October 27, 2014 by marty3

[Cookie]

Imho, even though "NSF funds the person, not the project", you should propose a long-term project (> 2 year). Longer projects tend to have more components for you to elaborate. They are likely to have more impacts. In research, one year is a pretty short period of time. In my proposal, I wrote a detailed timeline of 3 years. 

[geographyrocks]

The research proposals I've been reading (which is A LOT, I think I'm obsessed!) tend to lay out a long-term project.  By long-term, I mean longer than a semester or a year.  NSF may fund the person and not the project, but I don't see the logic in funding a person who can only propose a short-term project.  I also don't see a short-term project as proof that you can "plan feasible and significant research projects".  There are always exceptions, of course.  But I think generally, longer term projects tend to be more significant. 

 

 

The NSF GRF does not fund your research for 3 years. It funds you as a researcher for 3 years worth of stipend so you can focus on research, instead of TAships and RAships.

I don't see the distinction beyond the fact that your research can change over time.  NSF funds the researcher for 3 years which in my mind means you need to BE a researcher for 3 years which includes time to write it all up as well. 

Either way, I'm not encouraging anyone to try to outline their dissertation. 

 

I've never been a reviewer for NSF so all of this is opinion mixed with things I've read. 

 

Edit: I love this website: http://www.alexhunterlang.com/nsf-fellowship

Edited October 28, 2014 by geographyrocks

[GeoDUDE!]

The research proposals I've been reading (which is A LOT, I think I'm obsessed!) tend to lay out a long-term project.  By long-term, I mean longer than a semester or a year.  NSF may fund the person and not the project, but I don't see the logic in funding a person who can only propose a short-term project.  I also don't see a short-term project as proof that you can "plan feasible and significant research projects".  There are always exceptions, of course.  But I think generally, longer term projects tend to be more significant. 

 

I don't see the distinction beyond the fact that your research can change over time.  NSF funds the researcher for 3 years which in my mind means you need to BE a researcher for 3 years which includes time to write it all up as well. 

Either way, I'm not encouraging anyone to try to outline their dissertation. 

 

I've never been a reviewer for NSF so all of this is opinion mixed with things I've read. 

 

 

Geopraphyrocks, the distinction is huge: for example, if you fund the person, that person can bring money with them where ever they go. If you fund the project, the project pays for overhead (thinking of different NSF Grants), and most if not all that money is immobile. Thats why professors who bring in money have to think very carefully about jumping ship, and why its often a big financial commitment to steal a professor. It is nothing to take lightly.

 

On the other hand, I do not think the length of the project (in terms of time) matters. What the NSF GRF must be is a well constructed plan to fill a meaningful gap in literature. If that takes 3 years, so be it, but its much easier to write a 2 page proposal that outlines half a year to a year, in my opinion. Seeing as most people who apply for the GRF haven't even worked on a project for that long.  

[geographyrocks]

Geopraphyrocks, the distinction is huge: for example, if you fund the person, that person can bring money with them where ever they go. If you fund the project, the project pays for overhead (thinking of different NSF Grants), and most if not all that money is immobile. Thats why professors who bring in money have to think very carefully about jumping ship, and why its often a big financial commitment to steal a professor. It is nothing to take lightly.

 

On the other hand, I do not think the length of the project (in terms of time) matters. What the NSF GRF must be is a well constructed plan to fill a meaningful gap in literature. If that takes 3 years, so be it, but its much easier to write a 2 page proposal that outlines half a year to a year, in my opinion. Seeing as most people who apply for the GRF haven't even worked on a project for that long.  

I had a feeling saying "I don't see the distinction" would be misconstrued.  I'm well aware that NSF grants follow the person no matter where they go (although that is a good point for anyone who reads this and didn't know that). 

What I meant was that even if it doesn't fund your research for 3 years, it funds you as a researcher for 3 years so you should be able to show that you can be a researcher for 3 years. 

 

I'm starting to have a feeling that we're quibbling more over terminology and phrasing rather than the underlying point. 

So what I'm trying to say is, I think that the significance of your research should be longer than 1 year to show that you can form a complex research plan. 

[ktk]

Good advice from both sides - thanks all. And about the whole debate, I hope I didn't construe that I'd be able to finish it in a year - I might consider getting a subproblem down though... Modularity!

[Monochrome Spring]

I also want to point out that a year-long project could actually be a substantial major project in different fields. I don't think I'll have a single project over 1.5 years during my entire PhD, but that doesn't make them non-substantial. That means that my projects have a different time frame than yours. I am proposing a 1-1.5 year project in my GRFP, and even then, it is difficult to fit everything in, including introduction/background and broader impacts.

[juilletmercredi]

How would the NSF reviewers know that it's a longer-term vs. short-term project anyway?  The project I proposed was a tentative dissertation project, but I did not include timelines or any indication of how long it would take me to do the project.  In fact, since I proposed a daily diary study in my NSF, it might have looked like it would've taken shorter than it actually did (the daily component was two weeks, but not all participants are recruited at the same time - it's taken us a year and a half to complete the data for this project, and it's not what I did my dissertation on because of that fact).  Most people in my field would have never done a daily diary study or even necessarily knew what it was, so it's not like it's a standard protocol they'd all be familiar with.

 

There were not several components; in fact, I spent more time talking about the theoretical underpinnings of the research and the impact I hoped it would have than I did talking about the actual method, which was only about 1 long paragraph.  That's because this isn't about the methods of the research; they are not really evaluating the project itself.

 

I suppose you could include a timeline, but this is a fellowship, not a grant.  As was already mentioned - the NSF just wants to know that they are funding a budding researcher who can think critically about interesting, feasible (in a very broad sense), innovative research.  They don't expect seniors and first- and second-year grad students to be able to write a full grant proposal with a detailed, realistic timeline.  What they do expect is that you know a little background in your field - enough to position your work theoretically - and that you've thought about where your work fits both within science and within "broader impacts."  I could see a 1-semester planned project doing that just as well as a 3-year project, and besides, your reviewers may have no idea how long the project is going to take you anyway.

 

The NSF says:

 

 

Present an original research topic that you would like to pursue in graduate school. Describe the research idea, your general approach, as well as any unique resources that may be needed for accomplishing the research goal (i.e., access to national facilities or collections, collaborations, overseas work, etc.) You may choose to include important literature citations. Address the potential of the research to advance knowledge and understanding within science as well as the potential for broader impacts on society.

 

And also

 

Don't get bogged down in the specifics, or be overly technical. Instead of elaborate details on theory, focus on the rationale for your studies and the existing literature as it supports your proposed work. While reviewers will generally be knowledge experts in your general field, they probably will not be experts in your specific proposed research topic.

 

Emphasis mine in both cases (except for the "don't get bogged down..." sentence).  The BEST advice I got when writing - which took my application from not even HM to funded in a year - was after I described my project to an informal mentor of mine, she told me "Well, I wouldn't fund that either!  What's the theoretical framework?  You need to have a theoretical framework on which your research is based."  Judging by the NSF's (totally new and much more informative!) website, that seems to be spot on and the most important part of your graduate research plan, far more important than the specific project you select.

Edited October 28, 2014 by juilletmercredi

[Pitangus]

I also want to point out that a year-long project could actually be a substantial major project in different fields. I don't think I'll have a single project over 1.5 years during my entire PhD, but that doesn't make them non-substantial. That means that my projects have a different time frame than yours. I am proposing a 1-1.5 year project in my GRFP, and even then, it is difficult to fit everything in, including introduction/background and broader impacts.

 

I agree that time frames can vary greatly, and a substantial project is one that would be meaningful to your field (e.g. publishable as a paper), not necessarily one that takes three years or the length of the proposed program.  

The only explicitly multi-year projects I've seen in Ecology proposals have been ones where collecting a long-term dataset was necessary to address the proposal question. And most of the successful proposals I've read didn't include a timeline.

 

For what it's worth:

My proposal addressed a two-part research question and had three related components: an observational study with a timeline of two years (two field seasons), an experiment with a timeline of one year (one field season), and an analysis of a pre-existing long-term dataset with no proposed timeline. Presumably I would have completed this project during the first two years of my program. What questions I would have pursued next would have depended on the results of this proposed project, and I alluded to future directions within a single sentence in my Anticipated Results section. 

[warbrain]

Not sure if this has been discussed already, but is it helpful to put preliminary results in our proposal, especially if we're second-year graduate students?  I think for other grant applications that's actually not helpful because it makes it seem like you have less work to do, and don't need the money as much, but I've heard the opposite for the NSG GRFP.