NSF GRFP 2016

[SAH]

Nothing for me: E/E, G/G, G/VG

A sincere congratulations to those who were awarded and my condolences to those of us who will be back on this thread next year!  

 

 

[Pink Fuzzy Bunny]

3 minutes ago, knp said:

@Pink Fuzzy Bunny Do you mind if I ask how you handled the broader impact stuff? You mentioned struggled with writing it, but three Es is a rousing success!

Yeah, I didn't have any "broader impacts" in my research proposal... I barely gave a motivation for the research itself. For my broader impacts reviews, they looked only at my personal statement and commented about things like my community service (which there isn't that much of). So I guess the proposal isn't taken as seriously as I was afraid it was.

[pali123]

30 minutes ago, pterosaur said:

That won't get you anywhere. They don't take appeals. If they said VG but didn't have any negative remarks, I guess they thought it was good but not... fantastic? It seems kind of like the idea of letters that kill you with "damnation by faint praise".

They wrote things like "exemplary" and just had a lot of good comments. There was absolutely no indication of what might have went wrong. Here is one thing I think maybe affected it? 

One wrote the following: It does appear that your grades have suffered in the semesters since starting your research; however, this is likely a direct consequence of your extensive time spent in the lab, and frankly, I support your prioritization.

I do not want to appeal it I just want to get more feedback. How else am I supposed to know where or how to improve?

[lithal]

8 minutes ago, Pitangus said:

You can't change the proposed institution as it appears on the awardee list, and it doesn't matter if you don't end up at the proposed program. When you accept the fellowship though, you do get to indicate the institution you will actually attend, but that won't change the public list. 

Thanks for the info! That makes sense when I was checking out the old awardee list. Acknowledging that the people who receive this award are getting into top schools anyways and many are engineering students, I noticed a higher than expected number of people saying their going to Berkeley, Stanford, MIT etc. I suspect incoming students who have to make an educated guess put their top choice school even if they don't go there, which will skew the public awardee list.

[CogPsych2015]

56 minutes ago, kafcat said:

For those of you in the social sciences...did you have any publications? I have 0 and got an honorable mention..their main critique was that I didn't use mixed methods/mostly qualitative work. I am wondering whether I should apply for the NSF next year or the following to get a publication in at least...but seems like they liked my app overall..just the methods part was lacking..

My only negative comments were my lack of pubs =/. I think the importance of that depends a lot on the individual reviewer. 

[Spaghettyohz]

1 hour ago, kafcat said:

For those of you in the social sciences...did you have any publications? I have 0 and got an honorable mention..their main critique was that I didn't use mixed methods/mostly qualitative work. I am wondering whether I should apply for the NSF next year or the following to get a publication in at least...but seems like they liked my app overall..just the methods part was lacking..

I didn't have publications last year and got HM, and did have 3 publications this year and got nothing (although all three reviewers noted that my publication record was exceptional for my stage - 1st year grad). I described a mixed methods study plan this year as well. I don't know if it helped or hindered me though. 

The only real critique I received was that I didn't have any LORs from my current program. But, considering that I started grad school 3 weeks prior to the NSF deadline, it didn't seem reasonable for me to include any. They would have been much weaker than the ones from PIs I've known for years and have published with.

[kafcat]

1 minute ago, Spaghettyohz said:

I didn't have publications last year and got HM, and did have 3 publications this year and got nothing (although all three reviewers noted that my publication record was exceptional for my stage - 1st year grad). I described a mixed methods study plan this year as well. I don't know if it helped or hindered me though. 

The only real critique I received was that I didn't have any LORs from my current program. But, considering that I started grad school 3 weeks prior to the NSF deadline, it didn't seem reasonable for me to include any. They would have been much weaker than the ones from PIs I've known for years and have published with.

that's interesting...I wonder if that will affect me too if I don't have any recommenders from my institution (its yr phd student this upcoming fall)...but there really is no way around it right?? Anyone with this dilemma? 

[Spaghettyohz]

8 minutes ago, kafcat said:

that's interesting...I wonder if that will affect me too if I don't have any recommenders from my institution (its yr phd student this upcoming fall)...but there really is no way around it right?? Anyone with this dilemma? 

Honestly, I would wait until year 2 (since there is now only one grad-level application attempt).

[mobilehobo]

3 hours ago, Neist said:

One didn't explicitly state so, but I got the impression they didn't like that it's taken a decade to finish my undergraduate. I guess excellent academic performance doesn't outweigh poverty and life circumstances.

 

I was pretty much in the same boat, but I took 6 years but did mediocre academically. I straight up wrote that I grew up poor ('low socioeconomic background' and 'underprivileged'), Had to work full time to take care of my family, and had to go to a local university to stay close to my family.  I followed every negative with how I 'overcame' the issue. I did do a lot of outreach through undergrad, so I was able to show how I'm taking my experiences and using them to guide and inspire young students. It's definitely a crap-shoot if you get the reviewers who go for that kind of story though.

[mobilehobo]

For everyone, win or lose, there is a great blog that gathers together the dumbest reviewer comments.

[hmpsychology]

I got a G/g (with no real criticism) VG/VG and E/E. Main complains were my lack of statistical background. Will reapply right before my second year as a grad student. Bummed but hopeful! I know that no one gets the same reviewers but given that no one complained about my actual application and just my credentials (they liked me and my proposal!) do we think i have a shot? 

Edited March 29, 2016 by hmpsychology

[pali123]

I am so angry I just wish I knew what was wrong with my application. I don't care about no winning I just want to be able to do better next time. I have no critical comments on my application and I am just confused why they wouldn't include constructive feedback? Sorry for venting it just sucks when you spend 3 months working on something so important yet the complete process of reviewing and commenting is so unprofessional. 

[Pink Fuzzy Bunny]

8 minutes ago, mobilehobo said:

For everyone, win or lose, there is a great blog that gathers together the dumbest reviewer comments.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Neist]

11 minutes ago, mobilehobo said:

I was pretty much in the same boat, but I took 6 years but did mediocre academically. I straight up wrote that I grew up poor ('low socioeconomic background' and 'underprivileged'), Had to work full time to take care of my family, and had to go to a local university to stay close to my family.  I followed every negative with how I 'overcame' the issue. I did do a lot of outreach through undergrad, so I was able to show how I'm taking my experiences and using them to guide and inspire young students. It's definitely a crap-shoot if you get the reviewers who go for that kind of story though.

I think it's another reason why I'll wait until year two to reapply.

If I'm successful enough in graduate school, they can't complain about my undergraduate experiences as much. 

[Humulus_lupulus]

13 minutes ago, mobilehobo said:

For everyone, win or lose, there is a great blog that gathers together the dumbest reviewer comments.

Yassssssss!!! I appreciate the time suck.

I really do feel bad for everyone who was in the position of having a horribly inconsistent reviewer, particularly those with E/E for two. That just blows. Mine were fairly consistent at least... I guess your science isn't "sexy" enough for #3.

[Neist]

21 minutes ago, mobilehobo said:

For everyone, win or lose, there is a great blog that gathers together the dumbest reviewer comments.

Rofl. 

"Why do you have so many tables? Did you go to Ikea?"

[Humulus_lupulus]

2 minutes ago, Neist said:

Rofl. 

"Why do you have so many tables? Did you go to Ikea?"

This will be me in the future. Sarcastic humor will probably be taken more lightly than angry cursing.

[Pink Fuzzy Bunny]

11 minutes ago, Neist said:

Rofl. 

"Why do you have so many tables? Did you go to Ikea?"

Of all the ones I read, that was the one that made me burst out laughing in the middle of class.

[ecodilley]

VG/E, E/VG, G/G not awarded

I am in the same boat as many of you having got explicitly shat on by a single reviewer.  The reviewer in question provided very little information for improvement.  I would say the main things I took away were:

1. My first reviewer although nearly all positive knocked me for replication saying I am looking to build only one artificial reef at each of my two site locations.  Only problem with that assessment is I explicitly said in my proposal I would build 20 reefs at each location.  Really made no sense to me.

2. I had a subpar undergrad GPA and it was mentioned in all three but my letters of recommendation in their minds seemed to compensate once again.

3. The reviewer that did me in mentioned that my study did not use "innovative techniques" and that should be a focus for my next application.  I don't really agree with this but regardless it is something to try to improve.  

 

[uku]

39 minutes ago, Neist said:

I think it's another reason why I'll wait until year two to reapply.

If I'm successful enough in graduate school, they can't complain about my undergraduate experiences as much. 

To please my reviewer three, you would need absolute top tier research outputs as a first year grad student. I haven't been an undergrad for 6 years and while my work in grad school was recognized, 3 still took the time to say " non-competitive research experience as undergraduate; " as en entire one third of their IM review

[Neist]

4 minutes ago, uku said:

To please my reviewer three, you would need absolute top tier research outputs as a first year grad student. I haven't been an undergrad for 6 years and while my work in grad school was recognized, 3 still took the time to say " non-competitive research experience as undergraduate; " as en entire one third of their IM review

I guess I can't complain too much. I do have funding, although it is far, far less than what the NSF GRFP would have provided.

I wish the reviewers weren't so mysterious. I don't even know if my reviewer three was a historian. I suspect not, given that they thought my research project was too inductive. I mean... it's history? I can't study history like I could study science.

[CaffeinatedCognition]

Last year I got HM with some iffy you-could-do-better kinds of comments and this year I got the most glowing reviews I've ever seen in academia and NOTHING. I'm more confused about this process than ever before. Oh well, that was the last chance for me.

A sincere congratulations to my (apparently flawless) colleagues who snagged a win! Obviously there are fewer awards than there are deserving candidates, so for those who missed out, don't be discouraged!

[PatJS]

15 hours ago, StemQueries said:

Very cool! I'm actually presenting a geoscience ed talk at SEGSA on Friday. I'm so glad that we'll have the results for this before that presentation, I just knew that I would find out the morning of and be so out of it! 

Did you get it~?~?~

[FantasticalDevPsych]

Social Sciences: (First year grad student)

VG/G, G/F, E/E (Nothing)

Improvement over my undergrad application for sure and generally very positive.

Reviewer 3 actually said I, "was a solid candidate for the graduate research grant".

Most of my critique from Reviewer 1 was to publish and present at more professional conferences (0 pubs and 1 professional conference presentation - my field is slow). But they still said that I was competitive. Reviewer 2 had all critique on my research area, a few small questions and the general include more "discussion of more theoretical and practical implications". 

Sucks to have not won but my advisor was happy with the comments despite not winning and we are potentially discussing things to improve on for next year. I'm a first year graduate student and from my understanding I can apply again. 

Edited March 29, 2016 by FantasticalDevPsych

[Eigen]

To all of you with inconsistent reviews: 

It sucks, but it's perfect preparation for every paper you will submit and every grant you will write in the future. 

You learn that most review processes have reviewers that spend very little time on a proposal (or paper) skim it, and then give feedback that is completely contrary to the actual proposal. It sucks, but it's something you just end up playing the odds on. 

My last two papers have had that one reviewer that says "This paper is horribly written and doesn't discuss X, Y or Z" when there are literally sections (towards the end of the paper) titled "Discussion of X, Y and Z". 

For the GRFP, the reality is that reviewers spend around 5-7 minutes looking at your entire package, and take notes while they do so. The "comments" you get are the notes the reviewers took while reading your packet, rather than substantive comments to help you improve for next year. All of my comments literally just summarized what I'd done and what I was proposing. 

It's also one of the reasons that NSF (and other) grant writing workshops focus so much on making the key points accessible- using underlined phrases, using language that exactly mirrors the call for proposals, and structuring your proposal such that someone skimming through it fast still takes away what you want them to take away.