NSF GRFP 2009-2010

[iLikeTrees]

Just updating my no-HM rejection with relevant info.

Intellectual Merit: VG VG

Broader Impacts: G G

I had a very strong academic record and strong recommendations which both reviewers commented on and some broader impact-type stuff, but there were several big deficiencies they pointed out:

1. Lack of publications and external presentations. Though some people can't really help this based on how their research goes...

2. Most of my broader impacts were things I wanted to do in the future, but had only done a little bit in the past.

And if it helps others:

GRE V/Q/W: 720/760/5

GRE Biochem Subject Test: 690 (95th percentile)

Undergrad GPA: 3.61

Grad GPA: 3.92

I'm in basically the same boat:

IM VG/VG

BI VG/F (one says I didn't address all the criteria even though the other thought it was great)

Basically the big thing I was lacking was publications from previous research. I have presentations, but in my small, undergrad-only institution there wasn't really a push to publish and I'm still writing my MS thesis and am not quite ready to publish from that.

I can't apply again for the NSF and am very doubtful I'll get the DOE, but I feel better than I did this morning. At least it sounds like once I crank out hopefully 3+ pubs from my MS I'll be a strong candidate for the DOE next year.

Congrats to winners & HMs and good luck to everybody with whatever you do now/next!

[lightyears]

I don't get it. I just checked out my rating sheets and they both say "Excellent" or "Very Good". The only negative comment on either of the sheets is "However, the applicant is not as strong as other applicants overall".

[meathead]

whoops

Edited April 6, 2010 by meathead

[Neurogirl37]

I am curious about what kind of broader impacts people wrote about. I am very active in my graduate school community, but I guess I wasn't specific enough about how I would educate the people. The reviewers had VERY kind things to say about my intellectual merit, but I only received a Fair BI score from all 3 of them. Anyway, I am definitely happy about the recognition I get with an HM, though money would have been nice too. And since this was my one and only shot to apply for NSF (I'm a 2nd year), I guess the fact that I did so will on the IM criteria gives me more confidence for applying to grants like NRSA, that are primarily based on those types of scores.

I dunno, I can't help but feel that the BI part of the essays is how well you can BS your way through things. I purposely wrote a little more broadly so that my personal essay wouldn't read like a list of how awesome I am. But I guess I should have gone in to more detail about other experiences too. The one comment that really set me off is that I didn't do any BI stuff in undergrad, which isn't true, but I chose not write about because I've already been out of undergrad for 4 years, and have done a lot of stuff since then. grrrrr.

Okay enough ranting, just curious what other people wrote about for BI... Thanks!

[MrHippo]

IM:E/VG/E

BI:VG/VG/E

Got HM. 2nd time applying. Reviewers said positive things. I thought these ratings would be good enough? I guess not. Maybe next time.

Edited April 6, 2010 by MrHippo

[Neurogirl37]

I didn't believe people when they said that this was arbitraty. . . but one person torpedoed my ratings. I had all Very Good and Excellent except for this person's two Goods. The reviewer directly contradicted everything the other two said, and adressed me as Laura. My name is not Laura and does not start with an L or even end with an A; in fact my name only shares one letter with Laura. WTF.

On the bright side I got more money than this in my school's fellowship. But I'm still feeling like they didn't even read my application seriously given the wrong name issue. Does three reviewers mean you made it past the first round?

I think it might be worth contacting the NSF and making sure they gave you the correct rating sheet! That just doesn't sound right. OR your reviewer is just really rude and doesn't care enough to refer to you by the correct name!

[socialpsychg]

Ouch MrHippo - Your ratings make it look like you were set!

[jsh]

#1: E/VG

#2: VG/VG

Disappointed that I didn't even get a HM! Is the review process the same (where ~ top 30% get a third review?) I'm a bit confused with the process this year...

[aileen]

I am curious about what kind of broader impacts people wrote about.

I mentioned my Ameri*Corps VISTA service in which I worked directly with persons at or below the poverty level, science events I have participated in that focused on serving children from disadvantaged backgrounds and of minority status, and work I have done (and will do) directly in the lab with similar populations. It helps that our lab participates very fully in REU programs that target disadvantaged and diverse populations because I will continue to work with them throughout my grad work. I also gave specific examples of the type of outreach I will do as a graduate student to continue working with the community on science-related topics - events, etc. I honestly, truly believe that weaving the broader impacts throughout my essays is what really got me the fellowship (in addition to them liking the research project and seeing that I have enough experience to carry it out, of course).

[mmm35]

I think it might be worth contacting the NSF and making sure they gave you the correct rating sheet! That just doesn't sound right. OR your reviewer is just really rude and doesn't care enough to refer to you by the correct name!

Well, it refers to me by the wrong name but it does correctly refer to a project I worked on (of course only to say mean things).

I was totally prepared to not get an award, and honestly wasn't too dissappointed at all until I looked at the rating sheets and found my chances were ruined by one mean reviewer that hated everything that the others liked and couldn't be bothered to get my name right! Now I just feel cheated or like I said something to offend the reviewer (though I don't know what)

But I didn't need the money and I can always try again next year when I am at a university and have better support than I did this time around.

[Rails111]

I am curious about what kind of broader impacts people wrote about. I am very active in my graduate school community, but I guess I wasn't specific enough about how I would educate the people. The reviewers had VERY kind things to say about my intellectual merit, but I only received a Fair BI score from all 3 of them. Anyway, I am definitely happy about the recognition I get with an HM, though money would have been nice too. And since this was my one and only shot to apply for NSF (I'm a 2nd year), I guess the fact that I did so will on the IM criteria gives me more confidence for applying to grants like NRSA, that are primarily based on those types of scores.

I dunno, I can't help but feel that the BI part of the essays is how well you can BS your way through things. I purposely wrote a little more broadly so that my personal essay wouldn't read like a list of how awesome I am. But I guess I should have gone in to more detail about other experiences too. The one comment that really set me off is that I didn't do any BI stuff in undergrad, which isn't true, but I chose not write about because I've already been out of undergrad for 4 years, and have done a lot of stuff since then. grrrrr.

Okay enough ranting, just curious what other people wrote about for BI... Thanks!

You can send me your email and I'll send you my personal statement (which is where I wrote about the broader impacts)

[inniskillin]

I had 3 reviewers as well, and no HM: G/VG, VG/E, VG/VG. I'm a Ph.D. applicant, and so put down my top choice school (where the proposal makes the most sense), and one reviewer seemed to dock me slightly because they didn't understand what my relationship to that school was. The G reviewer said to reapply when I'm in grad school.

[sarajune]

I'm really curious about how long these people take to read your application, and wonder if that plays a role in screwing a lot of deserving people over. For example, they seemed to appreciate/criticize really tiny details in my application, but overlook several EGREGIOUSLY bad undergraduate grades (Cs/Ds)? At a top-3 engineering school sevearl years ago, yes, but to make *no* mention or criticism of them at all in three reviews, for example? I mean what, did they glance at my file for 30 seconds ands skim the essays for the bold words?

[syjmf]

I didn't get an award, but I did get really kind, helpful and detailed feedback from my reviewers. I was feeling very down until I read their positive comments.

field: Entomology under Life sciences

BI: E/VG/VG

IM:VG/E/VG

Year: 2nd year PhD, first time applying

[UnlikelyGrad]

I actually got three reviews!!

My first reviewer gave me a VeryGood/Excellent.

It was the next two reviewers who shot my chances down--both gave me a: Fair/Good.

My complete lack of publications was an issue. Also, both reviewers 2 & 3 torpedoed me for not having enough methodology in my proposal. Given that I was coming from a background straight (theoretical) chemistry to an interdisciplinary field, I guess this should not be a surprise.

[iLikeTrees]

For those people that had publications listed in your application (especially people who received an award/HM), how many did you have and where did they come from? And what is your field?

I and it sounds like a few others got the shaft for not having any publications. When I mentioned this to a few professors, everybody seems pretty surprised and thinks it would be rare to have publications when you're in your 1st two years of grad school, but perhaps we've been under the wrong impression? I have presentations from my research experience, but my reviewers apparently thought that there should be journal publications. For those that got awards, did you have any publications?

[Rails111]

For those people that had publications listed in your application (especially people who received an award/HM), how many did you have and where did they come from? And what is your field?

I and it sounds like a few others got the shaft for not having any publications. When I mentioned this to a few professors, everybody seems pretty surprised and thinks it would be rare to have publications when you're in your 1st two years of grad school, but perhaps we've been under the wrong impression? I have presentations from my research experience, but my reviewers apparently thought that there should be journal publications. For those that got awards, did you have any publications?

I think your professors are mistaken, though there have been people who have received awards without publications.

I had 1 publication, 1 submitted, and a bunch in prep. I also had around 4 presentations at national conferences

I'm in my first year of grad school. Field: Psychology

[Neurogirl37]

I have 11 published co-authored papers and 2 first author papers that are in press; all of these from the 2 years of research I did as an NIH postbac between undergrad and grad school. I think all the publications make up for my crappy GPA and GRE scores. I think if you have good scores and are a well rounded and involved student not having publications won't kill your application, but for all grant programs the ability to get your work published and communicate with the outside world is an important factor.

[emie]

For those people that had publications listed in your application (especially people who received an award/HM), how many did you have and where did they come from? And what is your field?

I and it sounds like a few others got the shaft for not having any publications. When I mentioned this to a few professors, everybody seems pretty surprised and thinks it would be rare to have publications when you're in your 1st two years of grad school, but perhaps we've been under the wrong impression? I have presentations from my research experience, but my reviewers apparently thought that there should be journal publications. For those that got awards, did you have any publications?

I won this year (yay!) and I have no publications, although I did present a poster at a major conference (AGU meeting, for others in geological sciences) and was a co-author on another poster. No reviewers complained about my lack of pubs, and in my field it is unusual for 1st and 2nd year grads to have journal articles, but is more common to have conference posters/talks by that time. I am a 2nd year student in a geological sciences field (don't want to be too specific as my subfield is small).

edit: decided to add my stats, if anyone is interested. 3 reviews, E/VG E/VG and VG/VG with intellectual listed first. GRE is 800Q, 620V, 5.0 writing and one reviewer commented positively on my GREs. GPA was 3.45 in undergrad, 3.8 in grad, so apparently a 3.45 is not too low.

Edited April 6, 2010 by emie

[Language Lover <3]

It's all across the board. I received G/G and F/F, and both reviewers wrote such nasty comments it actually made me cry. My approach in the proposal was mainly ethnographic, and they both made clear that they docked me for not have more laboratory methodology, even though that's not compatible with the research. For my stats, I have 3 pubs, 1 forthcoming, and 3 more in review; 10 conference presentations (3 international and 3 major national); undergrad GPA 3.78, grad GPA 3.85 at a top tier school; GRE is average (1230, 5.0); over a year as research assistant on an NSF funded project; 2 additional years as a grad research assistant; 3+ years volunteer teaching children from different backgrounds; and four invited guest lectures on my research. Yet, the second reviewer said my research background was "adequate" and both didn't give me any comments on anything other than my research proposal. This year not one award went to anyone in my subfield, so I don't know that the reviewers this year even really understood the project...

1st time applying, 2nd year in grad school... so looks like I'm done...

[JCV]

second year grad student... Second HM (analytical chemistry)... this year I got VG/VG, VG/E, VG/VG... 3.9 undergrad and 3.9 grad GPA, 2 publications, solids GREs. I really thought I had great broader impacts all around, but only 1 reviewer felt strongly about that Here's to hoping for DOE or NDSEG!

[greenlion]

I'm taking a year off between undergrad and grad, working as a tech in a lab. I applied on a whim, at the encouraging of my undergrad advisor, wrote essays quickly, and sent it in. I even forgot about the application until this mornings email. I made my "official" grad school decision the day before, so this was a nice addition to my $ package. The program advisor was also quite excited. I went to a small, liberal arts college and the reviewers seemed to really be drawn to that. I'll put my stats here - feel free to ask and questions:

Program - Life Sciences (Botany, including Plant Phys), Reviews: E/VG, E/VG, VG/VG. The reviewers did comment on my lack of publications (2 in prep), but were drawn to my strong letters of rec and such. The best comment "her minor in creative writing really came through, as this was the most entertaining personal statement I've ever read." GPA: 3.75 (undergrad: Biochem major). GRE: 800Q, 580V, 6.0W.

[bdonkey]

Got an HM: E/VG, VG/F, E/E. Undergrad in EECS.

Kind of bummed; I guess reviewers might have very different opinions of what constitutes broader impacts. Too bad my third reviewer wasn't my second reviewer, heh. Oh well, I'll try again next year.

[idontknow]

For reference:

I won the NSF GRFP this year. I am a 1st year graduate student, and my profile was as follows (at the time of application):

Program: Energy Engineering.

Undergraduate GPA: 3.87 @ UCI (double major: Mechanical Eng, Aerospace Eng / minor: Materials Science Eng).

Graduate GPA: 4.0 @ UCI (I had taken some graduate classes as an undergraduate)

GREs: decent, but not great (combined about 1280)

Publications:

4 as first author: 2 conference, 2 journal

3 as 2nd author: 2 conference, 1 journal

Presentations:

2 at international conferences corresponding to the conference papers I was first author on.

Outreach:

Was one of the founding officers of a Sustainable Energy Technology Club at UCI.

Embedded outreach activities for energy education into my research plan (with perspective).

My rating sheets were as follows:

Rev 1: VG/E

Rev 2: E/E

Rev 3: E/G

As far as broader impacts go, there's a lot more that goes into it than what's in your profile - it also depends on what you propose in your personal statement / proposed research, and more importantly, your perspective on it in the context of society around you. I'm sure this was in everyone's application, but getting it across is difficult. I think for broader impacts, they weren't just looking for a statement of broader impacts, but a sense of consistency and depth in the motivation behind your research and your personal perspectives. This was the hardest part for me when I wrote my essays, because I had a lot to say and very little space with which to do so, but I got a lot of help for trying to say what I wanted to say in a small space.

This was my second time applying, I applied last year as an undergrad and got an honorable mention. I think what would be useful, is for me to talk about the differences between my application last year and my application this year. Message me if you want to know, since it's a lot to say.

I'll also make the disclaimer that me being awarded does not make me an all knowing source of what the NSF people were looking for. I only have an idea based off of my reviews from last year, this year, the advice I received to change my app from last years, the help I received when trying to get across what I wanted to get across, and personal perspectives. So in short, all I have are thoughts, but I can't say that they are correct or useful to people.

Edited April 6, 2010 by idontknow

[caulfieldh]

A rising grad first year, I received the fellowship. My ratings were (IM, BI):

1. Very Good, Very Good

2. Excellent, Very Good

3. Excellent, Excellent

Is it correct to presume that the first two are the original reviewers and the third is a reviewer called in to determine the end result?

Does anyone know anything about deferral of the award when the student defers entering his/her future program as approved by the program? It seems, according to the program announcements, that the only way is medical withdrawal (a status which I might pursue if needed), but maybe someone has had a different experience or know of one?