NSF GRFP 2016

[Neist]

6 minutes ago, Kinetic Isotope Defect said:

First year grad student, didn't get it. E/VG, VG/E, G/F. Last reviewer was really harsh (I got dinged for changing fields ffs), but the other two reviewers had some incredibly nice and positive things to say.

I think someone pooped in my last reviewer's cheerios.  

I'm a little bit disappointed in my results. I didn't think I'd get it, but man, that last reviewer...

Good/Good, Good/Very Good, Poor/Poor. 

The first two reviewers were fair in their assessment. The last reviewer was a callous jerk.  

[sierra918]

2 hours ago, uku said:

Looks like we had the same reviewer three

Apparently! My first two reviewers had awesome things to say, but the last one all but told me I should switch fields ?

Such is life!

[Kinetic Isotope Defect]

8 minutes ago, Neist said:

I think someone pooped in my last reviewer's cheerios.  

I'm a little bit disappointed in my results. I didn't think I'd get it, but man, that last reviewer...

Good/Good, Good/Very Good, Poor/Poor. 

The first two reviewers were fair in their assessment. The last reviewer was a callous jerk.  

"After reading (and re-reading) the research section, it's not clear how this project will broadly impact science, society, human health, or otherwise be significant beyond journal articles."

A direct quote from my third review. I actually outlined exactly how my project would do all of these things (and put it under a big, bold "Broader Impacts" section header so it couldn't be missed), but apparently this reviewer didn't believe a word I wrote!

[FreudianSip]

12 minutes ago, Neist said:

I think someone pooped in my last reviewer's cheerios.  

I'm a little bit disappointed in my results. I didn't think I'd get it, but man, that last reviewer...

Good/Good, Good/Very Good, Poor/Poor. 

The first two reviewers were fair in their assessment. The last reviewer was a callous jerk.  

That sucks! I am sorry. Did the last reviewer not read your statements carefully? So much of it comes down to getting the right reviewers

[Neist]

10 minutes ago, Kinetic Isotope Defect said:

"After reading (and re-reading) the research section, it's not clear how this project will broadly impact science, society, human health, or otherwise be significant beyond journal articles."

A direct quote from my third review. I actually outlined exactly how my project would do all of these things (and put it under a big, bold "Broader Impacts" section header so it couldn't be missed), but apparently this reviewer didn't believe a word I wrote!

Maybe we had the same reviewer.  Who apparently reviewed proposals after a fifth of scotch.

8 minutes ago, FreudianSip said:

That sucks! I am sorry. Did the last reviewer not read your statements carefully? So much of it comes down to getting the right reviewers

I'm history of science student, proposing a digital humanities project, on an oft disregarded topic. I think he just didn't like me, what I want to do, and how I wanted to do it. 

[sierra918]

21 minutes ago, Kinetic Isotope Defect said:

"After reading (and re-reading) the research section, it's not clear how this project will broadly impact science, society, human health, or otherwise be significant beyond journal articles."

A direct quote from my third review. I actually outlined exactly how my project would do all of these things (and put it under a big, bold "Broader Impacts" section header so it couldn't be missed), but apparently this reviewer didn't believe a word I wrote!

I had a very similar third review!

[yolk]

Final Status - Not Recommended

F/G E/E G/E

A bit disappointing, but I'm very pleased with the feedback I received. I will be trying again this year! Great job to all those who received the award. It is an outstanding achievement considering the quality of the applicant pool!

[Robin Goodfellow]

No luck for me - mostly Goods - but congrats to everyone who got it!

[bposadas]

I had the same thing with two great reviewers, and one who just didn't support my project.

Sadly, this is my last year of eligibility.

Congrats to everyone who received it, and good luck to those applying next year!

[knp]

Not recommended - social sciences. VG/G VG/F G/G

- Shoot, this makes my program decision way more difficult. Sad.

- Okay so it's not like I would have won it anyway...

- ...but I am SO STEAMED about one of the "good" reviews for my broader impacts!!!! (And also the "fair" review just on principle.)

- I rested half of my case for broader impacts on a concept that, admittedly, is only in the GRFP program solicitation briefly, but is all over the NSF website as a priority for their grants, especially for professional research project grants.

- Reviewer: "As Concept is not an important impact according to NSF's goals..."

- I cited it using exactly the four-word phrase (and copied some of the surrounding language, too), with which it appears in the NSF's own lists of its own goals!!!! What do you want from me!!! If I go to an NSF-eligible program next year, do I have to cite not only that phrase, but cite that it is coming from the NSF, not from my own head??? It's on all the lists of all NSF's recommended broader impacts!!! WUAGHHH.

- Oh, also, my project is "notably incomplete," because it doesn't include sources from [population of evidence THAT DOESN'T EXIST].

A VERY FRUSTRATING EXPERIENCE

Okay now I am going to go read all the rest of your posts to find out what happened with you!

[chaparral]

3 minutes ago, knp said:

Not recommended - social sciences. VG/G VG/F G/G

- Shoot, this makes my program decision way more difficult. Sad.

- Okay so it's not like I would have won it anyway...

- ...but I am SO STEAMED about one of the "good" reviews for my broader impacts!!!! (And also the "fair" review just on principle.)

- I rested half of my case for broader impacts on a concept that, admittedly, is only in the GRFP program solicitation briefly, but is all over the NSF website as a priority for their grants, especially for professional research project grants.

- Reviewer: "As Concept is not an important impact according to NSF's goals..."

- I cited it using exactly the four-word phrase (and copied some of the surrounding language, too), with which it appears in the NSF's own lists of its own goals!!!! What do you want from me!!! If I go to an NSF-eligible program next year, do I have to cite not only that phrase, but cite that it is coming from the NSF, not from my own head??? It's on all the lists of all NSF's recommended broader impacts!!! WUAGHHH.

- Oh, also, my project is "notably incomplete," because it doesn't include sources from [population of evidence THAT DOESN'T EXIST].

A VERY FRUSTRATING EXPERIENCE

Okay now I am going to go read all the rest of your posts to find out what happened with you!

Which concept, if you don't mind me asking?

[itsflea]

I've been lurking this entire time

E/E E/E E/VG

Life Sciences - Neuroscience

Awarded

You are all beautiful

[Gram Positive]

1 minute ago, itsflea said:

I've been lurking this entire time

E/E E/E E/VG

Life Sciences - Neuroscience

Awarded

You are all beautiful

Congratulations!

[pterosaur]

2 minutes ago, itsflea said:

I've been lurking this entire time

E/E E/E E/VG

Life Sciences - Neuroscience

Awarded

You are all beautiful

I was debating whether to submit in bioengineering or neuroscience and opted for bioeng. My scores were basically on par with yours (VG/E E/E E/E) but only HM. Maybe I should have submitted under neuro instead!

[Neist]

4 minutes ago, knp said:

A VERY FRUSTRATING EXPERIENCE

Okay now I am going to go read all the rest of your posts to find out what happened with you!

I echo your comments, but I'm not discouraged by my results.

I just finished Free Radicals: The Secret Anarchy of Science by Brooks, and I feel as if I'm going to turn into a anarchist historian. That last reviewer just didn't get it, and I'll prove it, eventually.  

[itsflea]

2 minutes ago, pterosaur said:

I was debating whether to submit in bioengineering or neuroscience and opted for bioeng. My scores were basically on par with yours (VG/E E/E E/E) but only HM. Maybe I should have submitted under neuro instead!

I struggled to decide what to submit it under, since I was leaning on writing a Psychology proposal at first. Then I convinced myself I can be competitive in Neuroscience if I altered my hypothesis a bit, and that led to enough change and confidence that I decided to roll with a Neuroscience proposal. After reading enough papers it clicked.

[knp]

It was a societal impact thing that would have no relevance to any of the actual sciences, only social sciences, which is why it may have been less emphasized for the GRFP. (I'm also exaggerating about "four words": I don't remember how many words exactly, I just know I mirrored lots and lots and lots of phrasing.) I mean, it's fine; it's no worse and somewhat better than any of the other mis-readings you lot have gotten.

[Neist]

Just now, knp said:

It was a societal impact thing that would have no relevance to any of the actual sciences, only social sciences, which is why it may have been less emphasized for the GRFP. (I'm also exaggerating about "four words": I don't remember how many words exactly, I just know I mirrored lots and lots and lots of phrasing.) I mean, it's fine; it's no worse and somewhat better than any of the other mis-readings you lot have gotten.

Shame these are so short. It's hard to propose something of any complexity in the length they require.

My poor/poor reviewer baffles me. For example: "Although the applicant would use some automated methods, it is not clear what they would be intended to reveal." Seems the reviewer proposes I develop a certain measure of bias. In another passage, he claims the research would be too inductive. Well, it is history research. If history was deductive, then it wouldn't be a humanities, would it? And DH research is nearly always inductive. 

I'm not bitter or angry, but man, I really wanted some meaningful feedback. That last reviewer's comments are as useful as a bag of rocks. It makes me sad.  

[CommonerCoffee]

So is a HM worth putting down on your CV/Resume and the such? Not quite the prize but hopefully not entirely meaningless either.

[itsflea]

Just now, CommonerCoffee said:

So is a HM worth putting down on your CV/Resume and the such? Not quite the prize but hopefully not entirely meaningless either.

I would

It's definitely something to be proud of

[Neist]

6 minutes ago, CommonerCoffee said:

So is a HM worth putting down on your CV/Resume and the such? Not quite the prize but hopefully not entirely meaningless either.

Yup, I would.

Don't they claim somewhere that it's a significant award, in it's own right (on the NSFGRFP website)?

I also noticed that someone from my program who graduated about a year ago got a GRFP this year.  I'll have to email a congratulations.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Neist

[Gram Positive]

13 minutes ago, Neist said:

Yup, I would.

Don't they claim somewhere that it's a significant award, in it's own right (on the NSFGRFP website)?

You get access to supercomputing infrastructure too (XSEDE)!! Now we need to use XSEDE to help get a paper out and then write about it the next time we apply

Edited March 29, 2016 by Gram Positive

[Neist]

In a completely unrelated note...

Anyone else have a headache from drinking too much last night while you awaited the results?

Ugh.

[bpat1218]

Congrats to those who received!

Physical/materials chemistry

E/E, VG/G, G/G , nothing

Some serious disagreements from the reviewers obviously and one's comments make it obvious that he/she did not read my personal statement thoroughly (said I did no outreach when I had a paragraph detailing my outreach to teaching a STEM program to elementary school children as a volunteer for over a year). A little disappointing but we all know that the review process is unfortunately quite open to bias. Just glad the wait is over!

Note to future applicants: Arrange your statement such that even the lazy (or, for benefit of the doubt, tired and eyes glazed over from reading so many statements) reviewer cannot miss the important bits. 

[Neist]

Just now, bpat1218 said:

Note to future applicants: Arrange your statement such that even the lazy (or, for benefit of the doubt, tired and eyes glazed over from reading so many statements) reviewer cannot miss the important bits. 

This fantastic advice.  

I would hope one wouldn't need to spoon feed the points into the maws of reviewers, but I think it's probably apt to.