FooMan Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Isn't your percentile ranking a function of more than just your 3 reviews? I'm pretty sure it takes everything into account (reviews, GPA, recommendations, awards, publications, etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachAJ Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I think your reviews take into account GPA and GRE...at least on one of my ratings sheets, the reviewer said "Excellent academic record (GPA & GRE)". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachAJ Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Also, question...does this mean that only 7% received fellowships this year? My HM said I was in the 79th to 93rd percentile, and the earlier poster who received the fellowship said he/she was in the top 7%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FooMan Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 If you look at the NSF Fellowship thread from 2006, it's fairly clear that the percentile ranges don't alone determine winning vs. HM vs. rejection. Top 7% seemed to be a universal win, but, perhaps depending on research area, it seems 79-93% can either be HM or a win, and the range below that can either be HM or nothing. Some subspecialties appear to have more awards allocated to them than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miller1998 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Right, those percentiles are of all applicants, not of a particular discipline. Apparently the number of awards per discipline is a function of the number of applicants to that area, which means that there's no way to game the system by choosing an obscure field. If you look at the NSF Fellowship thread from 2006, it's fairly clear that the percentile ranges don't alone determine winning vs. HM vs. rejection. Top 7% seemed to be a universal win, but, perhaps depending on research area, it seems 79-93% can either be HM or a win, and the range below that can either be HM or nothing. Some subspecialties appear to have more awards allocated to them than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FooMan Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 "Apparently the number of awards per discipline is a function of the number of applicants to that area" It's a function of more than that; I don't think the number of students interested in "CS - Theoretical Foundations" has decreased by 65% compared to 5 years ago. The number of awards to CS in general seems to be decreasing over the years. The NSF most likely prioritizes its money by research area, with the fields it considers higher priority getting higher budgets. Furthermore, I don't see how it can make sense that the percentiles compare you with all applicants. There are different panels that each evaluate the different research areas. How could they compare the rankings of some physics panel with that of some biomedical engineering panel? Any attempt to do so seems artificial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miller1998 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 You're right: the set of all students, ranked by panels., is a partial ordering. Maybe their email about ranking is sloppy and they really should say "ranking within the panel"? Furthermore, I don't see how it can make sense that the percentiles compare you with all applicants. There are different panels that each evaluate the different research areas. How could they compare the rankings of some physics panel with that of some biomedical engineering panel? Any attempt to do so seems artificial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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