NSF GRFP - seeking advice from those who got HM first, then awarded the next year

[hummm]

I got HM this year. My reviews were mostly positive (E/E, VG/E, VG/G) but one reviewer mentioned that my outreach plan should be more specific. I'm applying next year as a 2nd year grad student. What did YOU do to improve your app? It doesn't have to be related to BI. I just want to know what people did to increase their chance (or luck). I would appreciate what you did to boost your app. 

Edited March 29, 2016 by hummm

[rdevine]

I am in the same boat, got HM today with 2 reviews writing about a sentence for each review and the third had very little negative comments. All my reviews were excellent IM and Very Good BI, so it seems like I have very little room for improvement, outside of finding out I am an underrepresented group. Any tips? If not, just wanted to let ya know your no alone in this boat!

 

 

[gellert]

Apply the reviewers' comments, within reason -- you are unlikely to have the same reviewers next cycle.  Your proposal in general should be improved commensurate with your greater experience as a second year student.

For BI, try finding more concrete outreach, and then performing it.  This could mean mentoring students 1:1, talking about science on a public platform (blog, lectures in elementary/middle/high schools), or finding ways that any disadvantage from your own background has influenced your career and will contribute to your research being able to enhance the experiences of other disadvantaged people.  You can't overdo BI in my experience.  To the degree that BI can be integrated into both your research proposal and your personal statement, that's optimal.

[Queen of Kale]

I received an HM as an undergrad and was awarded as a first year. My first set of reviews were VG/VG VG/E VG/E and the second year were VG/VG E/E E/E. I only had positive reviews my first year including two reviewers which said that I deserved to be awarded - in fact they were much more glow-y than the year I was awarded. But in the end I decided to completely toss my first application and start from scratch. For one thing I figured even if I didn't win I would have learned a tremendous amount about a brand new project as well as the art of writing applications (which is never ending in grad school and beyond).

[marty3]

I too went from HM to winner. Here are things I did that might have helped:

-- Improved personal statement structure: I went from a standard essay to an essay with headers for Academics, Research, and BI, and also Intro and Conclusion. I believe this is a requirement now, but in any case, I'm not a great writer and this drastically improved the structure of my essays.

-- Discuss things in more depth: I have 2 particular examples I drastically improved in my essays. For academics, I emphasized the number of grad classes I took as an undergrad (>10 quarters), and went into details on my 2 favorite courses (which motivated my graduate studies). For BI volunteer work, I discussed science competitions, both how they made me who I am today, and how my volunteer work (both interactive judging and just test writing) will hopefully impact competitors in the same way.

-- Read as many reviewer comments as you can: Many people close to winning only get good comments rather than constructive criticism. Don't just look for criticisms. Read as many good comments from friends' applications as possible and tweak your essays to support them all. You'll find ways to appeal to many possible reviewers.

-- Actually rewrite the essays: In theory, an HM candidate could resubmit their essays and win the next year. I know a few people who have just resubmitted and went from HM to nothing. You can definitely keep parts of your essays if they work, but make every effort to improve them. My personal statement was about half old, half new, and the proposal was entirely new.