Munashi Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 I'm just going to leave this here. T-~5 weeks. 2014: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 @ 2:00 AM 2013 : Friday, March 29, 2013 @ ~2:00AM 2012: Friday, April 1, 2012 @ ~2:00AM 2011: Tuesday, April 5, 2011 @ ~12:50AM 2010: Tuesday, April 6, 2010 @ ~1:00AM 2009: Friday, April 10, 2009 @ ~1:00AM 2008: Tuesday, April 1, 2008 @ ~2:00AM 2007: Monday, March 23. 2007 @ ~11:20 PM Man, I hope it doesn't take until April 10th this year. Good grief. kbolya1 1
kbolya1 Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 I semi forgot about it until now Agree with Munashi, hoping for something like April 1 or a few days before so it happens on the weekend?
Pitangus Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 I know a professor who was actually on a NSF committee. I should've asked her when they started reading grants. I know that they first have to take "courses" where the idea is to sync everyone's rating system. It obviously doesn't work very well, but they try. If they still use z-scores when ranking applicants, then that should also help with the reviewer variability. The E/VG etc scores that applicants see is a simplification of the actual scoring system used for ranking.
AjSweens Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 I spoke with a professor who sat on a NSF panel two years ago. The way it was explained to me is that your app is sent out to various researchers in your field (generally 3-4 people). They read it and say to consider it or not. If it passes the initial read, it is sent to a panel of judges in your field. 2-3 of the panelists are in charge of being experts on your proposal. They explain your research, background, etc. to the others on the panel (some are in charge of skimming your projects, some will not read it at all). The panel will then discuss each proposal and recommends a certain number for funding. I have one professor who is sitting on the Ford panel, and she leaves next week to review. I'd imagine the NSF reviews happen around the same time. The panel process takes about 1 week to complete. The waiting is just awful!
rehab-robotics Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 I spoke with a professor who sat on a NSF panel two years ago. The way it was explained to me is that your app is sent out to various researchers in your field (generally 3-4 people). They read it and say to consider it or not. If it passes the initial read, it is sent to a panel of judges in your field. 2-3 of the panelists are in charge of being experts on your proposal. They explain your research, background, etc. to the others on the panel (some are in charge of skimming your projects, some will not read it at all). The panel will then discuss each proposal and recommends a certain number for funding. I have one professor who is sitting on the Ford panel, and she leaves next week to review. I'd imagine the NSF reviews happen around the same time. The panel process takes about 1 week to complete. The waiting is just awful!Really? I don't think I believe this.Info on proposal review is in the solicitation here http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/nsf14590/nsf14590.pdf. "Applications will be reviewed online by virtual panels of disciplinary and interdisciplinary scientists and engineers and other professional graduate education experts. Panels will review applications from broad areas of related disciplines."It seems irresponsible to have someone learn your proposal, then present it to the people that are actually grading it. That leaves so much wiggle room to depend on the person presenting your proposal and not the merit of your proposal. At least I hope what you said isn't true...
geographyrocks Posted February 28, 2015 Author Posted February 28, 2015 Was it a NSF panel or the GRFP specific panel? I ask because the regular panel is a lot more intense. Also, the GRFP panels are virtual now (according to the two former panelists I talked to).
AjSweens Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 It seems irresponsible to have someone learn your proposal, then present it to the people that are actually grading it. That leaves so much wiggle room to depend on the person presenting your proposal and not the merit of your proposal. At least I hope what you said isn't true... This is just how it was explained to me; I also would hope that proposals are looked at much more closely. However, consider having a panel of experts in your field having to read through every single submission. It seems like they would have a system to lessen the workload. I don't think this is much different than college admissions...
Pitangus Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Was it a NSF panel or the GRFP specific panel? I ask because the regular panel is a lot more intense. Also, the GRFP panels are virtual now (according to the two former panelists I talked to). It sounds more like a grant panel to me. My advisor served on one recently, and said that a panel is given a list of proposals, and panelists choose to review in detail ones that they think they would be knowledgeable about, so that every proposal gets a couple of reviewers. Of these reviewers, one is assigned to be the lead reviewer for the proposal. During the panel meeting, the lead reviewer reports on the proposal, and the other reviewers add their comments as well. After all proposals have been reported on, the panel as a whole ranks them and recommends some for funding. The NSF GRFP panels are a bit different, or at least they were in 2008 (I read the reviewer's guide from that year, which was available online at one point). A given subject panel distributed the applications so that each one went to two reviewers. The reviewers scored the application on a 1-50 scale for IM and BI, and applications that scored below the 65th percentile after two reviewers were retired without being read by a third reviewer. The remaining proposals got a third reviewer, and were then ranked based on the average of the z-scores (standardized scores weighted based on all scores given by a reviewer). Applications were then sorted into four Quality Groups based on their initial rankings and subsequent panel discussion, and these Quality Groups were used for assigning awards and HMs. I wrote about the 2008 reviewer's guide in more detail here: katsharki3, jmu, timshea and 1 other 4
jmu Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 I spoke with a professor who sat on a NSF panel two years ago. The way it was explained to me is that your app is sent out to various researchers in your field (generally 3-4 people). They read it and say to consider it or not. If it passes the initial read, it is sent to a panel of judges in your field. 2-3 of the panelists are in charge of being experts on your proposal. They explain your research, background, etc. to the others on the panel (some are in charge of skimming your projects, some will not read it at all). The panel will then discuss each proposal and recommends a certain number for funding. I have one professor who is sitting on the Ford panel, and she leaves next week to review. I'd imagine the NSF reviews happen around the same time. The panel process takes about 1 week to complete. The waiting is just awful! This is true for a normal grant but Pitangus is dead on about the GRFP. This was confirmed for me by a person who has sat on several of them. They actually meet in DC with 2-3 related fields meeting at the same time and reviewing the applications together. He said it takes as long as it does because they not only have to coordinate everyone but all reviewers from all fields can't be there at the same time so they have to stagger the meetings.
h3k4me3 Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 They do not physically meet anymore. It's all done virtually. Here's the link if you want to check it out yourself. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/nsf14107/nsf14107.pdf Munashi 1
geographyrocks Posted March 3, 2015 Author Posted March 3, 2015 They do not physically meet anymore. It's all done virtually. Here's the link if you want to check it out yourself. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/nsf14107/nsf14107.pdf Yes it is. And FWIW, I know that some sections have already met and read through all of the proposals.
Cosmojo Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Yes it is. And FWIW, I know that some sections have already met and read through all of the proposals. Do you know what sections? The curiosity is killing me over here! kbolya1 1
commodork Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Yes it is. And FWIW, I know that some sections have already met and read through all of the proposals. Oh no, don't tell me that
geographyrocks Posted March 3, 2015 Author Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) I know Geosciences is completely finished. And that section had the latest submit date (along with life sciences). The new method is crazy. They get all of the reviewers together on a video chat! Oh no, don't tell me that I know! I'm more nervous now that I know someone has already read my proposal. Edited March 3, 2015 by geographyrocks Munashi 1
Cosmojo Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 I submitted in geosciences as well, its weird to know decisions are done.
Munashi Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) I know Geosciences is completely finished. How about psychology? >_> Our deadline was just before yours. I imagine it's probably been looked at as well. Bah, still a few weeks to go. Edited March 3, 2015 by Munashi
Freudian_Slip Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) They convene virtually in January..see here: http://www.nsfgrfp.org/panelists, so I think decisions were made quite some time ago for everyone. As someone else mentioned, the delay in revealing them is most likely due to not wanting to interfere with the grad admissions process, since funding would be a MAJOR factor ...and so by the time decisions are announced most recipients know they have a school they are beginning at in the Fall and can use the fellowship Edited March 4, 2015 by Freudian_Slip kbolya1 1
kbolya1 Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Part of me wants to just post my proposal so you guys can be like DN/M/P/DY..... definitely not, maybe, probably, definitely yes. This sucks knowing they've looked at it all by now. One more month will fly by though I suppose
stmwap Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 Part of me wants to just post my proposal so you guys can be like DN/M/P/DY..... definitely not, maybe, probably, definitely yes. This sucks knowing they've looked at it all by now. One more month will fly by though I suppose Without even seeing your proposal: M. Even if you have an excellent proposal, it depends on so many factors that are out of your control. Don't be too down on yourself if you don't get it. Most people don't. Munashi and kbolya1 2
kbolya1 Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 Thanks stmwap, it is good to remember the acceptance rate is what, something around 10 or 15%?
isilya Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 Thanks stmwap, it is good to remember the acceptance rate is what, something around 10 or 15%? Wow is it really that high??? That's awesome!! now I'm going to be absurdly hopeful.
geographyrocks Posted March 5, 2015 Author Posted March 5, 2015 In 2014, 14,000 students applied with roughly 2000 grants available. So the acceptance rate was about 14%. Good news to me since I was thinking it was around 7%. I think the 7% is for normal grants. http://www.nsfgrfp.org/assets/File/GRFP%20Outreach%20PowerPoint_NSF_Aug%2014.pdf kbolya1 1
shadowclaw Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 In my head, I have it reasoned l reasoned out that I have a decent chance of receiving it. We have 2000 fellowships and 14,000 applicants. So by pure chance alone, I have roughly a 1 in 7 shot at it. So several applicants likely didn't follow correct formatting, submitted two minutes too late, didn't get all of their LORs in, or otherwise did something to disqualify them. That probably brings the odds down to 1 in 6. Of those that did everything right, some people had to have written lousy proposals, not had any outreach experiences, had crappy GPAs, etc. I figure that brings the odds down to 1 in 4, assuming I didn't write anything stupid. It's better odd than playing the lottery! kbolya1 and stmwap 2
stmwap Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 In my head, I have it reasoned l reasoned out that I have a decent chance of receiving it. We have 2000 fellowships and 14,000 applicants. So by pure chance alone, I have roughly a 1 in 7 shot at it. So several applicants likely didn't follow correct formatting, submitted two minutes too late, didn't get all of their LORs in, or otherwise did something to disqualify them. That probably brings the odds down to 1 in 6. Of those that did everything right, some people had to have written lousy proposals, not had any outreach experiences, had crappy GPAs, etc. I figure that brings the odds down to 1 in 4, assuming I didn't write anything stupid. It's better odd than playing the lottery! This is true and there is nothing wrong with being hopeful, so long as nobody gets too disappointed. I was just trying to convey that one shouldn't feel like a failure if one doesn't receive an award. Even if your odds are ~25% like you reasoned, the odds are still technically against you. kbolya1 1
kbolya1 Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 Awesome way to think, I'll take 1/4 over 1/7! stmwap 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now