Fulbright 2017-2018

[Horb]

2 minutes ago, theanine said:

Well, you never know, could come within the next 20 minutes ...  yeah I think we're in for another week... 

I think so too, but I wait until 5pm to be sure. At least that means another week where I can pretend I actually have a shot at this thing

[thepictureisstill]

2 minutes ago, Horb said:

I think so too, but I wait until 5pm to be sure. At least that means another week where I can pretend I actually have a shot at this thing

ha! Right there with ya. I'm already planning for next year. 

[Dash123]

When I found out last year that I didn't make it past the first round, I was at the dentist and accidentally saw the email on my phone. No cavities though, so...

Still, hoping this is my year 

[jpnapplicant]

2 hours ago, Horb said:

The fulbright website says mid January, for what it's worth

Hi all -- new here! But I caught something from a link posted somewhere in this thread -- not only does it say mid-Jan, this site actually tells us what day they're shooting for. Hit the link and scroll down, or see below:

Sequence of Notification

1. By January 17, 2017: IIE will notify all applicants as to whether or not they have been recommended as semi-finalists for final review in the host country.

[theanine]

5 minutes ago, ad.eundum said:

Hi all -- new here! But I caught something from a link posted somewhere in this thread -- not only does it say mid-Jan, this site actually tells us what day they're shooting for. Hit the link and scroll down, or see below:

Sequence of Notification

1. By January 17, 2017: IIE will notify all applicants as to whether or not they have been recommended as semi-finalists for final review in the host country.

omg, how'd you find this? Seeing behind the curtain  

[jpnapplicant]

2 minutes ago, theanine said:

omg, how'd you find this? Seeing behind the curtain  

Like I said earlier, someone posted this link to this thread earlier! I think in pages 1-4 or something. I tried to find it before posting, but it was taking too much time to find the exact page.

[catsbloom]

7 minutes ago, ad.eundum said:

Hi all -- new here! But I caught something from a link posted somewhere in this thread -- not only does it say mid-Jan, this site actually tells us what day they're shooting for. Hit the link and scroll down, or see below:

Sequence of Notification

1. By January 17, 2017: IIE will notify all applicants as to whether or not they have been recommended as semi-finalists for final review in the host country.

That's better than next Friday! I'm going to be back in the classroom full time on Tuesday so I'll have to check my e-mail on breaks. Fingers crossed they notify around lunch time!

[jpnapplicant]

Found the exact place I got this, it was actually in the 2016-2017 thread:

On 1/16/2016 at 0:55 PM, Dostoprimechatel'nosti said:

In case anyone is obsessed like me, I found this link super interesting last year and it has been updated for this application cycle.  There are links to the National Screening Committee lists, so you can see who reviewed your application (although for ETAs it doesn't separate the reviewers by region), and to pages that explain the application review process.

http://us.fulbrightonline.org/country-review-resources

If you follow dosto's link and poke around those subsequent webpages, then you can find the link I posted.

[Photogeographic]

36 minutes ago, ad.eundum said:

Hi all -- new here! But I caught something from a link posted somewhere in this thread -- not only does it say mid-Jan, this site actually tells us what day they're shooting for. Hit the link and scroll down, or see below:

Sequence of Notification

1. By January 17, 2017: IIE will notify all applicants as to whether or not they have been recommended as semi-finalists for final review in the host country.

*BRAIN EXPLOSION *

[CoolOwl]

42 minutes ago, ad.eundum said:

Hi all -- new here! But I caught something from a link posted somewhere in this thread -- not only does it say mid-Jan, this site actually tells us what day they're shooting for. Hit the link and scroll down, or see below:

Sequence of Notification

1. By January 17, 2017: IIE will notify all applicants as to whether or not they have been recommended as semi-finalists for final review in the host country.

If Monday is a Holiday, is it possible we will receive notification on the 17th (Tues.)? 

[jpnapplicant]

2 minutes ago, milliedaisy said:

If Monday is a Holiday, is it possible we will receive notification on the 17th (Tues.)? 

I would assume that the Fulbright Commission is well aware of the MLK holiday; I doubt they would boldly post such a specific date to their reviewer's guide if they weren't!

Additionally, I figure they would also consider students' feelings (from my own understanding being on the reviewer's side for things). Imagine getting dropped out of the running today and having to cope with the rejection over, say, a pre-planned vacation... Maybe they're letting us have our holiday before breaking the news?

[lia.md]

13 minutes ago, Photogeographic said:

*BRAIN EXPLOSION *

Same

[Photogeographic]

15 minutes ago, lia.md said:

Same

I'd green arrow up this but .... I've hit my limit for the day ... 0_- 

[thepictureisstill]

24 minutes ago, ad.eundum said:

I would assume that the Fulbright Commission is well aware of the MLK holiday; I doubt they would boldly post such a specific date to their reviewer's guide if they weren't!

Additionally, I figure they would also consider students' feelings (from my own understanding being on the reviewer's side for things). Imagine getting dropped out of the running today and having to cope with the rejection over, say, a pre-planned vacation... Maybe they're letting us have our holiday before breaking the news?

You are probably right, though I'd much prefer to have a cathartic cry in the privacy of my weekend, haha

[LibbyCreek]

14 minutes ago, Mossy.artist said:

Have you picked a specific town? Will you be associated with some sort of University? So you're going to see how a small town increases tourism? Isn't there a scenario where a community wouldn't necessarily want to increase tourism? And can't it be said that not all places actually have something special to offer? I understand that financially this could be a good thing, but you also hear so many stories of how the real "spirit" of a place is lost with globalization if you will. How will you be looking into this matter?

I have certainly accumulated a good amount of gear at this point, lol. But you don't really need more than something to offer some comfort from the elements. If I get the Fulbright I will definitely have an interesting experience. I'll basically be driving around the country in a rental car (maybe) and just camping in the woods all the time. Hopefully I don't run into any ruffians. There is a good amount of diversity in Polish environments, I plan to sample a little bit of everything to try and capture all the species in a particular group of mosses. I'm most excited to work in the mountains and in the Bialowieza national park which is one of the only remaining patches of virgin forest left in Europe. Prime moss habitat! 

I hate not knowing what my near future will look like! Moving across the ocean takes a lot of planning but if I get a yes in the next few days I still won't be finding out anything definite for awhile. ><

 

4 hours ago, Mossy.artist said:

Have you picked a specific town? Will you be associated with some sort of University? So you're going to see how a small town increases tourism? Isn't there a scenario where a community wouldn't necessarily want to increase tourism? And can't it be said that not all places actually have something special to offer? I understand that financially this could be a good thing, but you also hear so many stories of how the real "spirit" of a place is lost with globalization if you will. How will you be looking into this matter?

I have certainly accumulated a good amount of gear at this point, lol. But you don't really need more than something to offer some comfort from the elements. If I get the Fulbright I will definitely have an interesting experience. I'll basically be driving around the country in a rental car (maybe) and just camping in the woods all the time. Hopefully I don't run into any ruffians. There is a good amount of diversity in Polish environments, I plan to sample a little bit of everything to try and capture all the species in a particular group of mosses. I'm most excited to work in the mountains and in the Bialowieza national park which is one of the only remaining patches of virgin forest left in Europe. Prime moss habitat! 

I hate not knowing what my near future will look like! Moving across the ocean takes a lot of planning but if I get a yes in the next few days I still won't be finding out anything definite for awhile. ><

Thanks for the conversation! 

Yes, I would be located in the town of Sumeg, near Lake Balaton. I have an affiliation at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and another at the local action group (a rural development structure) in Sumeg where I would intern a few days a week, so I would be affiliated with the Academy of Sciences, but not located there. Maybe I didn't explain myself very well about my project. I am not studying tourism, rather how to sustain rural communities without focusing on tourism. 

I can't imagine how incredible a virgin forest in Europe would be! Wow! Great project!

[Mossy.artist]

3 hours ago, ad.eundum said:

In case anyone is obsessed like me, I found this link super interesting last year and it has been updated for this application cycle.  There are links to the National Screening Committee lists, so you can see who reviewed your application (although for ETAs it doesn't separate the reviewers by region), and to pages that explain the application review process.

http://us.fulbrightonline.org/country-review-resources

WOW. Getting to see the list of people who review the applications is actually pretty infuriating as someone coming from a STEM field, specifically Biology/Environment. Why even have science be an option and then so ridiculously under represent it!?  Not only is Poland grouped simply into "Eastern Europe" but the ONE single person who even has anything to do with the sciences is a geologist! And I wondered why only Art and History students ever went to Poland... Seriously so upsetting. :'(

[Mossy.artist]

2 hours ago, LibbyCreek said:

 

Thanks for the conversation! 

Yes, I would be located in the town of Sumeg, near Lake Balaton. I have an affiliation at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and another at the local action group (a rural development structure) in Sumeg where I would intern a few days a week, so I would be affiliated with the Academy of Sciences, but not located there. Maybe I didn't explain myself very well about my project. I am not studying tourism, rather how to sustain rural communities without focusing on tourism. 

I can't imagine how incredible a virgin forest in Europe would be! Wow! Great project!

Sorry I misunderstood your research proposition. How do rural communities usually sustain themselves without tourism? Don't such communities usually sell some sort of craft or goods to get things from outside their community?

[hobakie]

14 minutes ago, Mossy.artist said:

WOW. Getting to see the list of people who review the applications is actually pretty infuriating as someone coming from a STEM field, specifically Biology/Environment. Why even have science be an option and then so ridiculously under represent it!?  Not only is Poland grouped simply into "Eastern Europe" but the ONE single person who even has anything to do with the sciences is a geologist! And I wondered why only Art and History students ever went to Poland... Seriously so upsetting. :'(

I think its actually to your advantage if there are not as many people in your specific field reviewing your application, but that is just my opinion.  When I looked up the member list for China there are no reviewers involved with public health or health in China which I knew would be the case. I think it gives you more wiggle room as far as your research proposal because as long as you can make it sound plausible to a reviewer without that set of expertise then it is going to come across as a good research topic. However for applicants whose reviewers specialize in their area, there is going to be a lot more scrutiny and judging. They'll know exactly who in the field is already doing a similar project, whether or not your timeline makes sense, etc. But this is just how I look at it. The same thing happened with my campus committee, most of them while having expertise in Asia, weren't familiar with the health science side of things, I tailored my proposal so that an expert would approve it but a non expert would understand it without much help if that makes sense. 

[Mossy.artist]

1 hour ago, hobakie said:

I think its actually to your advantage if there are not as many people in your specific field reviewing your application, but that is just my opinion.  When I looked up the member list for China there are no reviewers involved with public health or health in China which I knew would be the case. I think it gives you more wiggle room as far as your research proposal because as long as you can make it sound plausible to a reviewer without that set of expertise then it is going to come across as a good research topic. However for applicants whose reviewers specialize in their area, there is going to be a lot more scrutiny and judging. They'll know exactly who in the field is already doing a similar project, whether or not your timeline makes sense, etc. But this is just how I look at it. The same thing happened with my campus committee, most of them while having expertise in Asia, weren't familiar with the health science side of things, I tailored my proposal so that an expert would approve it but a non expert would understand it without much help if that makes sense. 

You have a valid point. I guess I'm just upset that my proposal won't be read by someone who will truly understand its value in the biological world. Of course I did my best to get that message across...Maybe I'll get past because they'll be like, "Oh man, I've been approving so many history applications, I better just let this one through!". It just seems so ridiculous that less than 1% of the reviewers are from the biology/environmental field. Especially in this day and age when environmental topics are so big! And YET, such an overhaul of History/Literature/Political Science. Just really grinded my gears you know? I wonder how the committee members are chosen?

[Photogeographic]

15 hours ago, ad.eundum said:

Found the exact place I got this, it was actually in the 2016-2017 thread:

If you follow dosto's link and poke around those subsequent webpages, then you can find the link I posted.

Oh god. Why did I look at the NSC review & process rating scale PDF !???

[iDance]

13 hours ago, Mossy.artist said:

You have a valid point. I guess I'm just upset that my proposal won't be read by someone who will truly understand its value in the biological world. Of course I did my best to get that message across...Maybe I'll get past because they'll be like, "Oh man, I've been approving so many history applications, I better just let this one through!". It just seems so ridiculous that less than 1% of the reviewers are from the biology/environmental field. Especially in this day and age when environmental topics are so big! And YET, such an overhaul of History/Literature/Political Science. Just really grinded my gears you know? I wonder how the committee members are chosen?

I am right there with you. I'd green arrow it but it's still saying I've used all of mine up for the day. Although my topic is interdisciplinary, it's got a lot to do with profiling patients in a specific sect. I was lucky--my FPA and mentors told me to take out the jargon. Reading over the list of judges, I'm so glad they did that because none of them are even close to medical science. In some ways that's good, as my project is pretty qualitative and medicine is in a quantitative preferential state right now, but at the same time I'm not sure if most people would understand the need to know your patients to work with them for the best outcomes. I think my app is strong enough that that shouldn't be a reason if I'm eliminated since I worked with people in the humanities to expand my knowledge lacks, but it's still kind of a let down. But yeah, I found the lack of any health science and minimal (sorry humanities folks) "hard" science people on the boards a little disheartening. Maybe we'll be on them one day! 

[PGxalex]

In regards to all the disheartened science people... I actually missed this the first time I looked at the list of NSC members (because I was so focused on the country-specific people), but there is a category of "Science" evaluators, in the "Committees of Academic Fields by Discipline"... underneath the committees on Architecture, Business, and Creative Writing. Then, in the NSC Review Process and Rating Scale document, I noticed it said this:

THE REVIEW PROCESS

A comparative approach is used in the National Screening Committee review process. It includes both rating and ranking the applications for a specific country or, in a few of cases, for a specific field.

Then further down the page:

0. FIELD OF STUDY: SCIENCE (LIMITED), BUSINESS (LIMITED), CREATIVE WRITING, ARCHITECTURE

   • Field specialists

   • Professionals & faculty

   • Country/World Region experience optional

I interpreted this to mean that regardless of the country you applied for, if your application was science-based, it would get sent to the Science committee rather than the country committee, and the science applications would be ranked against each other, rather than against the other applicants for that country... This part confused me, though, because some countries designate a preference for STEM applications, so I'm not sure how the science rankings could be integrated into the country rankings, if it's all evaluated separately... Alternatively, I guess the science committee could provide the ratings of applications for feasibility, past experience, etc., and leave the absolute ranking up to the country committees. Does anyone have any other ideas about this? Or any other interpretations of what this means...?

[Photogeographic]

45 minutes ago, PGxalex said:

In regards to all the disheartened science people... I actually missed this the first time I looked at the list of NSC members (because I was so focused on the country-specific people), but there is a category of "Science" evaluators, in the "Committees of Academic Fields by Discipline"... underneath the committees on Architecture, Business, and Creative Writing. Then, in the NSC Review Process and Rating Scale document, I noticed it said this:

THE REVIEW PROCESS

A comparative approach is used in the National Screening Committee review process. It includes both rating and ranking the applications for a specific country or, in a few of cases, for a specific field.

Then further down the page:

0. FIELD OF STUDY: SCIENCE (LIMITED), BUSINESS (LIMITED), CREATIVE WRITING, ARCHITECTURE

   • Field specialists

   • Professionals & faculty

   • Country/World Region experience optional

I interpreted this to mean that regardless of the country you applied for, if your application was science-based, it would get sent to the Science committee rather than the country committee, and the science applications would be ranked against each other, rather than against the other applicants for that country... This part confused me, though, because some countries designate a preference for STEM applications, so I'm not sure how the science rankings could be integrated into the country rankings, if it's all evaluated separately... Alternatively, I guess the science committee could provide the ratings of applications for feasibility, past experience, etc., and leave the absolute ranking up to the country committees. Does anyone have any other ideas about this? Or any other interpretations of what this means...?

 

 

To my understanding that is correct. So the first round you should be viewed by the committee of your discipline, then the 2nd round you are technically competing against everyone who has moved forward to the in-country committee/panel regardless of your discipline. For example, not every country is listed on the NSC Member List (PDF). Although I'm not sure what the means for the countries that are listed. Maybe you're looked at by both your discipline and a country specific committee. 

I only have 3 committee members looking at my discipline (based on the stats 31 of my discipline were reviewed and 9 go forward). But I guess if you have 300 applicants that might be a bit harder for only 3 members to review? Maybe they have country specific panels in the first round to help with the number of applicants. Also, I'm curious if the committee members in the first round are actually in the same room discussing the applications together, or if they're all submitting our ratings online? 

Hmmmmm.

[Horb]

1 hour ago, iDance said:

I am right there with you. I'd green arrow it but it's still saying I've used all of mine up for the day. Although my topic is interdisciplinary, it's got a lot to do with profiling patients in a specific sect. I was lucky--my FPA and mentors told me to take out the jargon. Reading over the list of judges, I'm so glad they did that because none of them are even close to medical science. In some ways that's good, as my project is pretty qualitative and medicine is in a quantitative preferential state right now, but at the same time I'm not sure if most people would understand the need to know your patients to work with them for the best outcomes. I think my app is strong enough that that shouldn't be a reason if I'm eliminated since I worked with people in the humanities to expand my knowledge lacks, but it's still kind of a let down. But yeah, I found the lack of any health science and minimal (sorry humanities folks) "hard" science people on the boards a little disheartening. Maybe we'll be on them one day! 

It does mention under tips to write to a general audience, which makes sense considering it goes to the host country for approval and they don't send them out to specialists necessarily. Besides, all fields have jargon that even others in the field might not understand.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Horb

[PGxalex]

13 minutes ago, Photogeographic said:

To my understanding that is correct. So the first round you should be viewed by the committee of your discipline, then the 2nd round you are technically competing against everyone who has moved forward to the in-country committee/panel regardless of your discipline. For example, not every country is listed on the NSC Member List (PDF). Although I'm not sure what the means for the countries that are listed. Maybe you're looked at by both your discipline and a country specific committee. 

I only have 3 committee members looking at my discipline (based on the stats 31 of my discipline were reviewed and 9 go forward). But I guess if you have 300 applicants that might be a bit harder for only 3 members to review? Maybe they have country specific panels in the first round to help with the number of applicants. Also, I'm curious if the committee members in the first round are actually in the same room discussing the applications together, or if they're all submitting our ratings online? 

Hmmmmm.

Ah okay, that makes sense... I'm still wondering how they control the number of people who are recommended, then, since the number of grants for each country varies so much, and they say they recommend 1.5-2 times the number of grants.. Where were you able to find the stats based on discipline?