Applying for NSF GRFP on rotation

[mobilehobo]

So my university brings about 100 graduate students early in the summer so they can start to do research and write the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program application. Because of the timing of my research statement being 'due' (for the class we take), I ended up writing it with my second rotation. I went onto by third rotation in October, finished writing my application with my second rotation, and submitted. I ended up joining my rotation #3 lab in December, then getting the GRFP last week based on my application with rotation #2.  All is great, except the rotation #2 PI is now expecting that I leave my lab to join hers. She meets with me, pretty much drags my PI through the mud, telling me that his lab would be a poor choice for an academic career based on their publication history. She reminded me that she did some 'heavy editing' on my research proposal. Then, gives me the next couple weeks to think about what she said and decide if I'll switch or not, telling me she hopes I make the 'ethical decision' here. So normally, I could just say 'no thank you, I will live with my bad decision', but since she's been a great mentor to me so far, I have her on my committee for my upcoming prelims AND I was writing a review paper with her based on my lit review from my NSF application. So now my prelims are next week, and I'm stuck untangling this mess, spending too much time meeting with various people in my department, and what could have been a great relationship has been ruined. I guess more than anything, just words of caution: while the GRFP does fund you whatever you decide to do, others may not feel that it should be that way.

 

[Adelantero]

The ethical decision the rotation #2 PI should be making is to not bully graduate students. All the faculty in the department should be interested primarily in helping the students in the department to do well. I'm sorry you have to deal with ridiculous people in positions of power. I really hope that the other folks on your prelims committee are more sensible people who will be more interested in your future and less in hers. I hope your PI sticks up for you when this is all going down though. Advisers should fight their students' corners. Period.

[juilletmercredi]

The whole beauty of the NSF GRFP is that it gives you the freedom to decide what you want to work on and with whom. It's a shame that some professors have a sense of entitlement to a graduate student with outside funding just because they provided help (helping graduate students secure outside funding is part of their job!), and especially distasteful that they feel the need to trash other colleagues. There's nothing unethical about you deciding to stay in your third rotation - there wouldn't be even if you originally came to your school to work with PI #2 and changed your mind later. That's the whole point of the GRF.

But make no mistake - this isn't about you or your funding. This is just the way this PI is, and she'd be this way if there was a different issue on the table too. Frankly, I'd be wary of having a person like that on my committee. It's a potential recipe for trouble if you have a PI who's volatile and doesn't get along well with others, or has an outsized sense of entitlement.

[TakeruK]

I agree with the above---the one acting unethically here is PI #2 for bullying you and going against the way the NSF GRFP works! When I applied for the Canadian equivalent (NSERC), for both the Masters and Doctoral awards I didn't take on the project that my application proposal was written (actually I didn't even attend the same school in the end). I was up front when contacting the potential PI about writing the proposal with them that 1) I'm only asking for 30-60 minutes of their time to help me write this and 2) there is no obligation on their part to accept me into their group nor an obligation on me to attend their program/join their group.

I also especially agree with juilletmercredi's comment about this being a warning about collaborating with this person in the future. This is not the type of professor I'd want to interact with. My advice is that you should get faculty on your side in this. Talk to PI#3 especially---I hope they will support you and get them on your side in case PI#2 decides to say bad things about you to the other faculty. Then, let PI#2 know your decision. Be respectful and very appreciative for everything you learned in their lab and for their help in developing you as a researcher (i.e. with that grant). But be firm in your statement that the NSF grant writing class and the GRFP itself is not meant to bind the student to the lab/rotation in which they write their proposal. Express regret that you cannot work with them but that you need to pursue the best opportunity for yourself and that is in Lab #3.

I would also talk to the Dept Chair or Director of Grad Studies or equivalent after your conversation with PI#2. Let them know that this has happened so that if PI#2 becomes unprofessionally upset with you and tries to damage you in some other way, there is a written record of this and so that they would be on the lookout. If the relationship with PI#2 goes really bad, you may even want to request that PI#2 not be included on your committees (whether it's prelims, quals, candidacy and/or defense).