NSF GRFP 2014-2015

[coffeemachine]

Hi, I'm looking for some input regarding letter writers. I have two of my three figured out (my current adviser, and a professor with whom I have written a roceedings paper, conference submissions, manuscript, etc.). Both these will be strong recommendations. But it's less obvious who should write the last one. There are basically two options:

 

(i) a young researcher who received her PhD in math five years ago who collaborated with my adviser and me for four months or so while she was at my institution. She is now at another institution. She can attest to my knowledge of the math relevant for my research proposal. Having her letter would further show that I am able to work with an interdisciplinary group, as I am not in math. The obvious disadvantage is that she is not a professor yet.

(ii) a professor in my field and at my institution whose course I took last semester and wrote a good term paper for. However, his research is maybe even less closely related to mine than is the research of (i). The advantage is that he is far more senior than (i).

 

I have more positive things about (i), and I am leaning towards asking her. What do you think, should I ask (i) or would it look weak to get a LoR from a postdoc/young researcher?

[chemgradugaua]

Hi, I'm looking for some input regarding letter writers. I have two of my three figured out (my current adviser, and a professor with whom I have written a roceedings paper, conference submissions, manuscript, etc.). Both these will be strong recommendations. But it's less obvious who should write the last one. There are basically two options:

 

(i) a young researcher who received her PhD in math five years ago who collaborated with my adviser and me for four months or so while she was at my institution. She is now at another institution. She can attest to my knowledge of the math relevant for my research proposal. Having her letter would further show that I am able to work with an interdisciplinary group, as I am not in math. The obvious disadvantage is that she is not a professor yet.

(ii) a professor in my field and at my institution whose course I took last semester and wrote a good term paper for. However, his research is maybe even less closely related to mine than is the research of (i). The advantage is that he is far more senior than (i).

 

I have more positive things about (i), and I am leaning towards asking her. What do you think, should I ask (i) or would it look weak to get a LoR from a postdoc/young researcher?

 

I would go for the more senior professor personally. Yes, you may have a better relationship with the first one, but it will look better to have a full professor writing a recommendation. I would write up your proposal and personal statement (whatever NSF calls it) and give it to the second professor so that he can write a strong LOR, as one of the questions that the recommendations ask includes: "Is the student capable of carrying out the proposed project?" (Not verbatim, but something along those lines)

[psychologue]

I am trying to figure out if it's worth it for me to apply, and I hope you can help me decide. I am currently beginning a General/Experimental Psychology MS, with the intention of continuing on to Clinical Psych PhD with a focus on children and adolescents. Beyond that my research interests vary, so it's possible I could construct a relatively basic science proposal, but I am really interested in balanced research/practice programs. Fundamental questions:

 

1. Should I apply in the first year of a "terminal" masters or wait until the second year? (Meaning that next year I will apply to PhD programs, hopefully beginning immediately after my masters)

2. If I'm intending to go into a balanced Clinical Psych program, am I even eligible for this fellowship?

3. If i don't have specifically science outreach experience, am I eligible?

4. Are there other similar grants that are more applicable to my situation/interests? I've done some searching but feel pretty in the dark.

 

Thanks!

[loginofpscl]

To piggy back what Monochrome spring said, as a moral human being, you should put down your top choice school; that is the school you intend to go to if you are admitted. 

 

I disagree with the idea that you should put down your top choice schools. I personally picked one of my mid-tier schools where I knew the professors' work and resources well, and mentioned continuing existing collaborations between professors across departments. I ended up accepting an offer from a higher-ranked school, but NSF reviewers are aware of this in judging senior applicants. I encountered neither difficulty nor a moral crisis requesting a tenure change to the school I will be attending.

 

I would advise applicants to get to know a university other than your undergraduate school very well, communicating with profs at those schools to learn what sort of resources they have to support your proposal.

[GeoDUDE!]

I disagree with the idea that you should put down your top choice schools. I personally picked one of my mid-tier schools where I knew the professors' work and resources well, and mentioned continuing existing collaborations between professors across departments. I ended up accepting an offer from a higher-ranked school, but NSF reviewers are aware of this in judging senior applicants. I encountered neither difficulty nor a moral crisis requesting a tenure change to the school I will be attending.

 

I would advise applicants to get to know a university other than your undergraduate school very well, communicating with profs at those schools to learn what sort of resources they have to support your proposal.

 

Its one thing to say you want to do one thing, circumstances change, and you do another. Its another thing to say you intend to one thing with out having the intention of doing so.  You always intend to go to your top choice, so list it. Failure to do so is dishonest, however harmless. Encouraging others to lie is another moral quandary all together! You might want to game the system (not really sure of what the consequences are of not putting your top choice are), but some of us like to do things as honest as possible. After all, the stakes are high for all applicants, its only fair that we make this competition honest.

[Pitangus]

I think your application program should be both a top choice and one whose resources you are familiar with, for I think those two categories should overlap anyways. If you don't know enough about a program's faculty and resources to envision a project you could do there, then how can it be your top choice? Name recognition/prestige alone?

[JCN]

Hello everybody, I am looking for some advice on the research statement. I intend to apply for the GRFP for the first time this fall as a first year graduate student at a new school. I understand that there is no obligation to actually do the research proposed in the research statement, but is there an expectation that one should already have some sort of connection to the project? Essentially my problem is that I have not been in an academic lab since December and the PI of that lab is now retired, so developing a research plan with him is not an option. It would make sense that I write my proposal based on the research of my first rotation advisor at my new school, but my program does not start until October and because of the program's structure, I will not know who my first rotation advisor will be until the last week of September (and I don't get to choose who this person is). I have arranged to rotate with a POI this December, but this is obviously past the deadline for the application. Should I simply wait until I know who my first mentor will be at my new school and quickly develop a research plan with him/her, or should I go ahead and write a proposal based on my research interests, but not actually based in the lab of a current mentor?

[Cookie]

Hello everybody, I am looking for some advice on the research statement. I intend to apply for the GRFP for the first time this fall as a first year graduate student at a new school. I understand that there is no obligation to actually do the research proposed in the research statement, but is there an expectation that one should already have some sort of connection to the project? Essentially my problem is that I have not been in an academic lab since December and the PI of that lab is now retired, so developing a research plan with him is not an option. It would make sense that I write my proposal based on the research of my first rotation advisor at my new school, but my program does not start until October and because of the program's structure, I will not know who my first rotation advisor will be until the last week of September (and I don't get to choose who this person is). I have arranged to rotate with a POI this December, but this is obviously past the deadline for the application. Should I simply wait until I know who my first mentor will be at my new school and quickly develop a research plan with him/her, or should I go ahead and write a proposal based on my research interests, but not actually based in the lab of a current mentor?

 

Why wait? Can you just go talk to the faculty you are interested in working with, and ask if you can write a proposal with them, and if you can start working in their lab early? A large part of your personal statement can be written without an advisor also.

You'd put yourself into a disadvantage if you wait til you get your first official rotation.

[shadowclaw]

I've got a question about discussing publications. Right now, I have a paper in review and I hope to submit another one shortly. I'm not sure exactly how long the review process takes (I assume 3 - 6 months), but I imagine I won't have an acceptance by the time fellowship applications are due. So my questions is, how should I talk about my paper(s) under review when discussing my research experience? Should I say... I worked on project x, this is what it was about, and it's currently under review at Journal Y? Or should I just say it's in review but not mention the journal? Any thoughts? 

[Monochrome Spring]

I've got a question about discussing publications. Right now, I have a paper in review and I hope to submit another one shortly. I'm not sure exactly how long the review process takes (I assume 3 - 6 months), but I imagine I won't have an acceptance by the time fellowship applications are due. So my questions is, how should I talk about my paper(s) under review when discussing my research experience? Should I say... I worked on project x, this is what it was about, and it's currently under review at Journal Y? Or should I just say it's in review but not mention the journal? Any thoughts? 

 

If it's a good journal, I would mention that it is under review at said journal. It can only help your application.

[GradHooting]

I have a question about this.  It looks like they changed the eligibility criteria and now allow second year graduate students on their first term to apply.  My GPA is definitely less than stellar, however.  With time, my doctors noticed that my ADHD coping mechanisms without medication were breaking down during the first year.  Now, with the right treatment, I feel completely different.  I still managed to keep my GPA high enough to retain my fellowship as well as pass the Ph.D. qualifying exam in the first year instead of holding off a year.  The disability office was a massive, massive help, and made me feel at ease.

 

I have also further progressed in my research to the point where I feel like I can make a much more solid proposal.  However, the biggest red flag right now is the GPA.  It is at least a 3.5, but it is not, like, 3.8+ or anything.  If I had the treatment one year prior, then it would have made a world of difference to class performance.  My problem was locking up during tests and not performing as well as I had studied.

 

Is it worth trying for it?  Since this is a more open-ended application, I feel that I might be able to bring some more influences into the application aside from raw numbers.

[Igotnothin]

I've got a question about discussing publications. Right now, I have a paper in review and I hope to submit another one shortly. I'm not sure exactly how long the review process takes (I assume 3 - 6 months), but I imagine I won't have an acceptance by the time fellowship applications are due. So my questions is, how should I talk about my paper(s) under review when discussing my research experience? Should I say... I worked on project x, this is what it was about, and it's currently under review at Journal Y? Or should I just say it's in review but not mention the journal? Any thoughts? 

 

I don't think it's a big deal one way or the other, but I personally would not mention what journal is currently reviewing it. It's not like being under review at a top journal makes it a top paper. And it comes across as trying to exaggerate its significance, in my opinion.

[geographyrocks]

I don't think it's a big deal one way or the other, but I personally would not mention what journal is currently reviewing it. It's not like being under review at a top journal makes it a top paper. And it comes across as trying to exaggerate its significance, in my opinion.

I completely disagree.  Being under review (no matter what journal you're submitting it to) means that you took the time and effort to write the paper, adhere to journal guidelines, and submit it.  I think the key here is effort.  A lot of people don't even bother trying.

 

As a side note, I've had a paper in review for about 9 months now so don't bet on that 3-6 months.

[newpsyche]

Hi, all! I've put together a list of my notes that I compiled while working on the GRFP application. I got it on my first try, so I really hope these help others! Good luck:

 

http://jessicabodford.com/nsf-grfp/

[Pitangus]

I completely disagree.  Being under review (no matter what journal you're submitting it to) means that you took the time and effort to write the paper, adhere to journal guidelines, and submit it.  I think the key here is effort.  A lot of people don't even bother trying.

 

As a side note, I've had a paper in review for about 9 months now so don't bet on that 3-6 months.

 

I agree that having a manuscript submitted or under review is worth including, particularly for an undergrad/pre-grad applicant who doesn't have a paper yet.

I had submitted a manuscript just before applying, so I included it in my research statement and my letter writers (who had reviewed the manuscript) mentioned it as well. Not sure if it made a huge difference in my receiving the fellowship, but one reviewer did bring it up in his/her feedback and gave me "kudos" for it (though the "kudos" seemed to refer to the fact that it was a sole-authored manuscript).

 

I think mentioning the specific journal is ok provided it has been sent out to reviewers and not just submitted, but I'm not sure how much it would matter. 

Edited September 5, 2014 by Pitangus

[Igotnothin]

I completely disagree.  Being under review (no matter what journal you're submitting it to) means that you took the time and effort to write the paper, adhere to journal guidelines, and submit it.  I think the key here is effort.  A lot of people don't even bother trying.

 

As a side note, I've had a paper in review for about 9 months now so don't bet on that 3-6 months.

 

I'm saying that he or she should write that the paper is "under review," but not list the journal.

[geographyrocks]

I'm saying that he or she should write that the paper is "under review," but not list the journal.

Ahhh I misunderstood.  In that case, I agree that the journal probably doesn't matter.  If they print your article, THEN it matters. 

[shadowclaw]

Thanks for the advice! I was concerned that putting the journal name might be frowned upon without an actual acceptance. Plus not mentioning the name will save some word space!

As a side note, I've had a paper in review for about 9 months now so don't bet on that 3-6 months.

Yes, I've noticed that many papers do take a long time! I'm being hopeful.

[asteraceae]

I have a question about recommenders... 

 

I have two chosen for sure: my REU mentor (REU done summer before Senior year) and my current graduate mentor.

 

I'm at a lost for the third for a few reasons. I attended a huge state school for my undergrad and I did undergraduate research for a year and a half before moving on to greener REU pastures. During my senior year I chose not to continue research in that lab as chose to TAed a bio course and analyzed my REU data for my senior honors thesis.

 

After graduating I took a year off to take a break from school and pursued non academic interests.

 

I'm stuck trying to find a third recommender. I know that I could ask the PI from early in my undergrad days, but I am not in the field anymore, and it has been 3 years since we've talked. Another option is one undergraduate prof that advised me on writing my thesis for a semester senior year and wrote me letters for grad school. I never really had many professors that knew me well outside of research (state school...) and my gap year created no contacts that could help me out. Lastly, my grad program is on the quarter system so while I've been on campus since May doing ecology field work I still haven't made contacts outside of my lab in the department.

 

Any help here? My proposal will be on plant ecology and has a large teaching/outreach component.

[chemgradugaua]

I have a question about recommenders... 

 

I have two chosen for sure: my REU mentor (REU done summer before Senior year) and my current graduate mentor.

 

I'm at a lost for the third for a few reasons. I attended a huge state school for my undergrad and I did undergraduate research for a year and a half before moving on to greener REU pastures. During my senior year I chose not to continue research in that lab as chose to TAed a bio course and analyzed my REU data for my senior honors thesis.

 

After graduating I took a year off to take a break from school and pursued non academic interests.

 

I'm stuck trying to find a third recommender. I know that I could ask the PI from early in my undergrad days, but I am not in the field anymore, and it has been 3 years since we've talked. Another option is one undergraduate prof that advised me on writing my thesis for a semester senior year and wrote me letters for grad school. I never really had many professors that knew me well outside of research (state school...) and my gap year created no contacts that could help me out. Lastly, my grad program is on the quarter system so while I've been on campus since May doing ecology field work I still haven't made contacts outside of my lab in the department.

 

Any help here? My proposal will be on plant ecology and has a large teaching/outreach component.

That's really up to you. I would personally go with the professor who wrote you recommendations for grad school. His letter had a part in getting you into grad school, so it must be favorable. 

[juilletmercredi]

1. Should I apply in the first year of a "terminal" masters or wait until the second year? (Meaning that next year I will apply to PhD programs, hopefully beginning immediately after my masters)

2. If I'm intending to go into a balanced Clinical Psych program, am I even eligible for this fellowship?

3. If i don't have specifically science outreach experience, am I eligible?

4. Are there other similar grants that are more applicable to my situation/interests? I've done some searching but feel pretty in the dark.

 

1. Both.

2. In theory, no.  This is the list of programs that NSF says are ineligible for the fellowship.

• Practice-oriented, professional degree programs (MBA, MSW, MPH, ED, etc.)
• Joint science-professional degree programs (MD/PhD, JD/PhD, etc.)
• Business administration or management
• Social work
• History (except for history of science)
• Public health programs
• Medical programs
• Dental programs
• Counseling programs
• Research with disease-related goals, including the etiology, diagnosis or treatment of physical or mental disease, abnormality or malfunction
• Clinical areas of study (including patient-oriented research; epidemiological and behavioral studies; outcomes research; health services research; pharmacologic, non-pharmacologic, and behavioral interventions for disease prevention, prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy; and community and other population-based intervention trials)

 

In practice, I got my PhD in public health and I do research with disease-related goals (substance use, mental health AND HIV prevention), and I still got an NSF GRFP.  I just emphasized the research-oriented nature of my work - I was in a joint social psychology program, so I emphasized that - and I didn't heavily mention my disease related goals in my research proposal, focusing instead on the theoretical framework and the basic science application of my work.  A friend of mine in my program who is a historian also got the NSF GRFP, and she also has clearly disease-related goals (she studies the history of asthma).  Technically it is the history of science - but the history of medical science, in a public health department!

 

I have a question about this.  It looks like they changed the eligibility criteria and now allow second year graduate students on their first term to apply.  My GPA is definitely less than stellar, however...I have also further progressed in my research to the point where I feel like I can make a much more solid proposal.  However, the biggest red flag right now is the GPA.  It is at least a 3.5, but it is not, like, 3.8+ or anything...Is it worth trying for it?  Since this is a more open-ended application, I feel that I might be able to bring some more influences into the application aside from raw numbers.

 

YES.

 

My undergrad GPA was a 3.42.  I thought I had exactly zero chance of getting the NSF GRFP, especially given that I was in a public health doctoral program with disease-related research.  There was no way to complete hide the disease-related nature of my research because it's the whole point.  I wrote my research proposal on trying to use innovative longitudinal methods to look at the relationship between discrimination, mood, and drug use in a population at high risk for HIV.  LOL.  I did minimize the HIV goals, but I did mention right in the research statement that one of the Broader Impacts of the research was to combat HIV.  I still got the fellowship, and I was more surprised than anyone else.

 

So if the question is "Should I apply?" the answer should be Yes, unless you are clearly ineligible based on the rules (and even then...lol!  I was in a public health program, it's a good thing I didn't read the criteria too closely...?).  If the question is "When?", the answer is "every year you are eligible.

 

Also, this isn't a change - 2nd-year grad students in their first semester could always apply.  That's when I won the fellowship - the second year of my doctoral program - and I applied in 2009.  I swear it was like a miracle, I think they picked me out of a hat lmao.

[bsharpe269]

Do you guys know how strict the disease related rule is?

 

I do reserach in biophysical modeling but the specific current application has been related to a medical issue. I could apply our methods to a large number of different things but the current application is a pretty big issue right now that is getting a lot of attention and I know I could write a great proposal about it.

 

Do you know if a situation like this is ok? Do you they just want to avoid someone doing a drug development sort of project or do you think my project would be pushing it and I should change it a bit?

[devneuro18]

Hi everyone, I'm a first year graduate student in Biology who will be applying for the GRFP. Quick question, my program does rotations first year, so I will be in a rotation lab from mid September until the end of the year. Should I include a letter from this PI in my application?

 

As a point of note, I was planning on using my letters from graduate school applications:

1. PI from 2 year post-graduate research lab, have 1 published co-first author paper here. I also have 1 sole author manuscript under review

2. PI from 3 years of undergraduate research.

3. Professor from class in undergrad where I did really well, and have helped the PI with some mentorship stuff post-graduation

 

I guess I could replace #3 with my rotation PI.

 

Second question, in terms of proposal is it smarter to:

 

1. Talk about a project from letter writer #1's lab (2 years of research post-grad). I have worked in this field for a few years so I would have more credibility. Problem here is that I will definitely not continue this work in grad school. (this proposal would be about mechanisms of stomach development, left-right patterning, etc)

 

2. Talk about a new project from my rotation. I would have less credibility, and since it is a slightly new field I'm not sure if my proposal would be as polished. (this proposal would be about novel hpRNA's and other non-coding RNA's identified in my rotation lab and their specific phenotypes with neural development)

 

I realize both proposals are broad, they will be more feasible when I start narrowing it down and writing.

 

Thanks!

[Cookie]

Hi everyone, I'm a first year graduate student in Biology who will be applying for the GRFP. Quick question, my program does rotations first year, so I will be in a rotation lab from mid September until the end of the year. Should I include a letter from this PI in my application?

 

As a point of note, I was planning on using my letters from graduate school applications:

1. PI from 2 year post-graduate research lab, have 1 published co-first author paper here. I also have 1 sole author manuscript under review

2. PI from 3 years of undergraduate research.

I guess I could replace #3 with my rotation PI.

 

 

2. Talk about a new project from my rotation. I would have less credibility, and since it is a slightly new field I'm not sure if my proposal would be as polished. (this proposal would be about novel hpRNA's and other non-coding RNA's identified in my rotation lab and their specific phenotypes with neural development)

 

As a first-year, you need one letter from your graduate school, so your rotation PI would be a no brainer.

About the proposal: Write one that connects your past and future research, so that your background is useful. Im sure you can dream up one, with your rotation PI's help.

[bathingintheneon]

Hi everyone! I've been away from the boards since I got my disappointing "not funded" decision from NSF last April. Solid reviews (all VG), but not quite good enough, I guess. All the reviewers mentioned my lack of first-author publications, even though I wasn't in graduate school yet. I, along with my advisors. thought this was really bizarre. BUT I currently have a first-author manuscript under review, so I'm definitely writing about it in my statement! Hopefully they won't come after me for that this year, and I can get more helpful reviews on other aspects of my proposal.

 

The good thing about this year is that I moved from the east coast to the west coast, so I only have to stay up until 12-1AM to find out the results in April