NSF GRFP 2016-2017

[Pinot Meow]

4 hours ago, Pinot Meow said:

Wow I woke up to some great news. Senior undergrad awarded with VG/VG G/E E/E. I'm kinda surprised considering my second reviewer. 

Forgot to add: Life sciences - microbial biology. 

[Levon3]

5 hours ago, Levon3 said:

That's how I feel too! I got it, and it took me hours to look at the reviews. OMG OMG OMG

I can hardly breathe.

E/E, E/E, E/E

STEM education

[Kaede]

2 hours ago, Janiejoneswoah said:

"The only Broader Impacts addressed are the potential benefits that the research might have to human health. "

Seems like a pretty broad impact to me, but what do I know

I don't think NSF wants to hear about the impacts your science will have but rather the impact you will have as a scientist. I wrote about going into communities and leading health sessions in high schools based on my findings and thereby encourage more women of color to start STEM research (and even then one of my reviewers said it was a weak BI compared to my previous BIs).

8 hours ago, shim12 said:

Got honorable mention again

Is there any significance to the first, second, and third reviewer? Both times it seems as if the third reviewer has included a statement as to whether or not I should receive the reward.

Interesting - my third reviewer is the only one that mentioned whether or not I was a good candidate for the fellowship.

1 hour ago, Infinito said:

Also, can people post which division/section they applied to because posting the scores doesn't tell you much as some divisions have higher or lower thresholds (I had an arguably higher score last year but still had HM, lol).

VG/VG, E/VG, E/E - Life Sciences, Physiology

1 hour ago, jeanetics17 said:

I applied to Life Sciences - Genetics. 

Congrats!! Another BBS-er with an NSF!

[Plantguypete]

1 hour ago, Infinito said:

VG/VG, VG/E, E/E (Life Sciences - Cell Bio) Honorable Mention.

Second year in a row and no more chances. The reviewers had really nice, heart warming comments, but obviously that wasn't enough. One of the VGs might have sunk me as their comment alluded to one of my rec letters explicitly stating what I was doing as this was my rotation PI adding to what I had no space to write about in my proposal, even though I did write it out (seems like they deducted points because I wasn't more specific about which "confocal microscopy" imaging I'd use, or which protein modifications I'd be looking at [I literally spelled it out, though]). 

So it's still a crapshoot, but in this time of funding drought, I'm truly happy for everyone that got it. It's still a great writing exercise.

Also, can people post which division/section they applied to because posting the scores doesn't tell you much as some divisions have higher or lower thresholds (I had an arguably higher score last year but still had HM, lol).

 

Remember: NSF doesn't want to hear anything about human health. That can actually hurt you because they have a limited funding pool for basic science, and the NIH is made to address that.

I applied to life sciences - Evolutionary Biology. I was awarded with VG/VG E/E VG/E

[jeanetics17]

7 hours ago, jeanetics17 said:

I got the award! I'm speechless. I haven't looked at the reviews, nothing in the world matters! lol

Reviews - VG/VG, E/VG, E/E. 

[Per1phery]

Help! I am a senior undergrad who has received the award, E/E, E/E, VG/G, but I haven't gained admission to any of the PhD programs to which I applied. Foolishly, I only applied to a few and was rejected from all of them. Does anyone know any specific loopholes for GRF deferment or has encountered a situation like this before? I know there has to be a way around this, jumping out of a third story window (medical deferment) joining the Army (military deferment). I know the GRF also funds research-based Master's but those deadlines have passed as well. The other Q&A forums were a little vague, so I would be very thankful if anyone could provide insight/advice. I've contacted my top choice to relate to them the good news, but they responded with a metaphorical door slam in my face. 

[Plantguypete]

22 minutes ago, Per1phery said:

Help! I am a senior undergrad who has received the award, E/E, E/E, VG/G, but I haven't gained admission to any of the PhD programs to which I applied. Foolishly, I only applied to a few and was rejected from all of them. Does anyone know any specific loopholes for GRF deferment or has encountered a situation like this before? I know there has to be a way around this, jumping out of a third story window (medical deferment) joining the Army (military deferment). I know the GRF also funds research-based Master's but those deadlines have passed as well. The other Q&A forums were a little vague, so I would be very thankful if anyone could provide insight/advice. I've contacted my top choice to relate to them the good news, but they responded with a metaphorical door slam in my face. 

So, this is what I have heard through the grapevine....

As an NSF GRFP awardee, you are highly desired. 

Email the PhD programs you were rejected from, better yet, call them. Tell them you were awarded the NSF GRFP. I am willing to bet they will happily bend the rules and let you in. Not only does the NSF save them money, but it also makes the program more distinguished. You have absolutely nothing to lose!

You might even be able to contact programs you are interested in but did not apply for.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Plantguypete

[bioinformaticsGirl]

Should you tell all universities you're still considering that you got NSF? Or only when you accept the offer? I wanted to let the two I'm still considering that I received the award so they can choose whether to accept someone off the wait list, but I'm not ready to commit 100% to any university yet...

Also, I can't believe some people's proposals were returned without review because it was disease related! My proposal was exclusively about studying a particular disease, albeit looking at it from a different perspective.

[Levon3]

3 minutes ago, bioinformaticsGirl said:

Should you tell all universities you're still considering that you got NSF? Or only when you accept the offer? I wanted to let the two I'm still considering that I received the award so they can choose whether to accept someone off the wait list, but I'm not ready to commit 100% to any university yet...

Also, I can't believe some people's proposals were returned without review because it was disease related! My proposal was exclusively about studying a particular disease, albeit looking at it from a different perspective.

I wouldn't until you're ready to commit. 

[Plantguypete]

14 minutes ago, bioinformaticsGirl said:

Should you tell all universities you're still considering that you got NSF? Or only when you accept the offer? I wanted to let the two I'm still considering that I received the award so they can choose whether to accept someone off the wait list, but I'm not ready to commit 100% to any university yet...

Also, I can't believe some people's proposals were returned without review because it was disease related! My proposal was exclusively about studying a particular disease, albeit looking at it from a different perspective.

I wouldn't until you have decided. 

As far as the proposal statement goes, I can personally kinda see where an immediate rejection would be appropriate. The NSF likes to fund fundamental research. Health related proposals I believe are funded through the NIH fellowships/grants. Just my opinion.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Plantguypete

[Pinot Meow]

12 hours ago, shim12 said:

Got honorable mention again

Is there any significance to the first, second, and third reviewer? Both times it seems as if the third reviewer has included a statement as to whether or not I should receive the reward.

To quote someone on Reddit: "You get a third review if you've moved on in the selection process, otherwise you only get two reviews."

I'm unsure if that's true but my third reviewer also gave a recommendation. 

[123456fg]

I never post here, but have had such a frustrating day due to this!!

So I got an honorable mention...Which would be fine, if it weren't for the fact that my reviews were E/E E/E E/E

Field was cognitive neuroscience.

I feel like they shouldn't have this ranking system if it doesnt actually mean anything in terms of outcomes -__________-

Just venting because I'm salty I guess. But I almost would have rather gotten a bad review. Because at least then it would make more sense. 

I'm a first year grad student so can't apply again next year either. Ugh

Edited March 18, 2017 by 123456fg

[dvasquez93]

17 hours ago, dvasquez93 said:

I was right when I thought there was a chance of results being announced today from my earlier post!

More excited that I received an offer! E/E E/VG VG/E

Also I applied for Life Science - Ecology

[jeanetics17]

2 hours ago, 123456fg said:

I never post here, but have had such a frustrating day due to this!!

So I got an honorable mention...Which would be fine, if it weren't for the fact that my reviews were E/E E/E E/E

Field was cognitive neuroscience.

I feel like they shouldn't have this ranking system if it doesnt actually mean anything in terms of outcomes -__________-

Just venting because I'm salty I guess. But I almost would have rather gotten a bad review. Because at least then it would make more sense. 

I'm a first year grad student so can't apply again next year either. Ugh

How is that possible?

[spectastic]

I'm planning to apply for the next cycle as a 2nd year, and have some questions.

1. what do the reviewers look at when they give you the E/VG/G/F? just the proposal, your overall profile like recommendations, GPA, GRE, all of the above? what's the order of importance?

2. do all the applications get reviewed at the same time? eg. undergrads, first, 2nd years all get looked at the same time. Or does are the rewards given different priorities to different categories such as research field, classifications?

3. what does a 2nd year usually have to do that's above and beyond from the others that would help distinguish the application? surely, they will be held at a higher standard than undergrads or first years.

 

Thanks

[Pitangus]

7 hours ago, jeanetics17 said:

How is that possible?

One likely explanation is that the numerical scores were lower than the reviewers' average scores. An E refers to a range of 40-50 on the numerical scoresheet. It's possible to get all Es that are at the low end of the range, and if the reviewers' averages were higher, then the resulting standardized score (z score) will be lower than for someone who scored higher than their reviewers' averages.

[Plantguypete]

10 hours ago, spectastic said:

I'm planning to apply for the next cycle as a 2nd year, and have some questions.

1. what do the reviewers look at when they give you the E/VG/G/F? just the proposal, your overall profile like recommendations, GPA, GRE, all of the above? what's the order of importance?

2. do all the applications get reviewed at the same time? eg. undergrads, first, 2nd years all get looked at the same time. Or does are the rewards given different priorities to different categories such as research field, classifications?

3. what does a 2nd year usually have to do that's above and beyond from the others that would help distinguish the application? surely, they will be held at a higher standard than undergrads or first years.

 

Thanks

Those are all very good questions!

I am a senior undergraduate that was just awarded the NSF GRFP, I will try to answer them to the best of my knowledge. 

1.) So, the reviewers have access to everything you submitted in the application (even demographical information - Affirmative Action). Anyways, they will look at the proposal, personal statement, research background, GPA, and your completed courses! The GPA is important, but not as important as the other sections (I was awarded with a 3.2 GPA, but they raved about my research experience). The NSF wants to confirm whether applicants are competent scientists and will award funding to those who are able to convince them. so as far as order of importance, it is my opinion that the order is: Proposal/research experience (research experience is talked about in both proposal and personal statement usually), then personal statement (primarily background and broader impacts), then GPA and Completed Courses. The reviewers will leave feedback (I got paragraphs!). They split the grading over 3 columns: the first talks about your competence, research experience, and the project;  the second column talks about broader impacts (I included a broader impacts in both the personal statement and research proposal, each addressing the broader impacts of my extracurriculars and the broader impacts of my research, respectively); the third column is basically "final comments" where they discuss your background and more or less the final verdict of whether to fund or not.

2.) Rewards are not prioritized based on where the student is at in their career. This year there were roughly 750 undergraduates funded, 1250 graduates funded. There were 13,000 applications (fewer than previous years, but likely because there are no more second chances unless you don't get funded from an undergraduate application first shot). They are all reviewed at the same time (within the submission deadline until they make decisions). I do not believe it goes undergrads then grad students or vice versa. I think it is more or less randomized and applicants are reviewed by people who are in the same general field (mine was life sciences - Evolutionary Biology). With all that being said, there does seem to be affirmative action going on (which is wonderful! This is coming from a white male too! Screw Trump! haha). This year there was a much higher proportion of females and underrepresented ethnicities than many previous application seasons. One other thing I think happens is that the NSF does not like to read about curing diseases or human health. That is what the NIH is for. In fact, it seems as those the preliminary reviewers will kick back the application before actually fully reviewing proposal. In other words, you will find out a couple weeks after submission that the reviewers will not be reviewing the application. 

3.) It is my understanding that both undergrads and grad students are held to the same standard. If it was different, one would expect there to be an even amount of both undergrads and grad students awarded (to even the playing field if you will). The only difference that I could imagine is that a 2nd year would already be settled into a lab and have a project in mind. I think it would actually be harder for an undergraduate to get the award because an undergraduate carried more risk. The reviewers do not know whether or not an undergraduate has been accepted somewhere at the point of application and awarding. An undergraduate would have to really convince the reviewers that he or she is a competent scientist (NSF could potentially waste 34K+12K every year for 3 years). Whereas a graduate student has the ability to know exactly what he or she will be doing and is able to express some expertise in their proposal. My proposal was based on what my undergraduate research was on and what would happen if I continued that research. 

I really hope this helped! I am happy to send you my materials if it helps you at all!

[Kaede]

10 hours ago, spectastic said:

I'm planning to apply for the next cycle as a 2nd year, and have some questions.

1. what do the reviewers look at when they give you the E/VG/G/F? just the proposal, your overall profile like recommendations, GPA, GRE, all of the above? what's the order of importance?

They look at intellectual merit and broader impacts separately, and each reviewer gives a grade for both IM and BI. I am an undergraduate so they did not ask me for my GRE - not sure if they require it for other applicants.

Based on the comments I got, it looks like IM consists of your proposal, your GPA, awards, etc. All of them commented on GPA/awards/fellowships first and then on the proposal, though I'm not sure if this is indicative of importance. Letters of recommendation seemed to be important for both categories - all of my reviewers commented about my LORs for both categories, albeit with different focuses (potential to be a scientist vs. backing up what I said in my BI).

I can't say for sure if there is an overall importance, though I imagine your proposal/broader impacts statement and letter of recommendation are the most important part of your application. If you have weaknesses in other areas though, I doubt it will have a trivial impact.

[PB&Banana]

Did anyone else have four reviewers on theirs? I was awarded an honorable mention with: VG/VG VG/VG G/G VG/E.

They really liked my personal statement and research proposal except for the third reviewer who seemed to have a background in my research topic and was very nitpicky about it. They gave me a lot of good feedback for what to improve next year since I'm a senior now (mostly that I would benefit from having a publication and continuing my outreach in graduate school). They also gave a lot of nice comments about my ability to be a strong candidate for graduate school and a leader in STEM so that was really nice!!

Edited March 18, 2017 by PB&Banana

[neuroslice]

Do you need to check fastlane to get the results or would I have received an email if I got it? I didn't realize they were released and now the website is down for maintenance 

Edited March 18, 2017 by neuroslice

[Levon3]

3 minutes ago, neuroslice said:

Do you need to check fastlane to get the results or would I have received an email if I got it? I didn't realize they were released and now the website is done for maintenance 

I received an email that I got it. Make sure you check your spam folder!

[neuroslice]

12 minutes ago, Levon3 said:

I received an email that I got it. Make sure you check your spam folder!

Weird, I got no email at all... I found this on the website "Email notifications have been sent to all reviewed applicants. If you did not receive a notification, please email info@nsfgrfp.org from the email address you used on your FastLane GRFP application, including your name, 10-digit applicant ID number, and primary mailing address."

So I should have gotten an email even if I was rejected? Just going to have to send them an email I guess

[jeanetics17]

I have attached two documents. One is a rubric that helps breakdown how statements are evaluated and scored (rubric) and the other is a general list of questions that reviewers typically have and are looking for you to answer. 

NSF GRFP Review Questions.pdf

NSF GRFP example Rubric.pdf

Edited March 20, 2017 by jeanetics17

[Kaede]

On 3/18/2017 at 10:37 AM, neuroslice said:

Weird, I got no email at all... I found this on the website "Email notifications have been sent to all reviewed applicants. If you did not receive a notification, please email info@nsfgrfp.org from the email address you used on your FastLane GRFP application, including your name, 10-digit applicant ID number, and primary mailing address."

So I should have gotten an email even if I was rejected? Just going to have to send them an email I guess

Yes, everyone should have received an email regardless of the outcome.

[Levon3]

@neuroslice Also, fastlane is back up, so you should now be able to log in and see your decision.