SSHRC 2010

[Canuckonomist]

So am I understanding correctly: Some people who have been granted a Vanier Scholarship are still being awarded a regular doctoral scholarship (big or small), therefore, when they refuse their doctoral scholarship for Vanier some people with a small SSHRC will be bumped to a big SSHRC and some people on the waiting list will be bumped to a small SSHRC?

I hear this is the case. It's probably the only way I'll get an award.

Also for drinks, evenings work! Tuesday is my birthday, but any other day is fine. Victory is also a fine choice, and quite a propos.

[Tropes]

Nothing in the mail today. Boo.

[NorthernStar]

I hear this is the case. It's probably the only way I'll get an award.

Also for drinks, evenings work! Tuesday is my birthday, but any other day is fine. Victory is also a fine choice, and quite a propos.

How about Friday @ Victory then?

[bad breath]

How about Friday @ Victory then?

i'd love to, but i have a rehearsal. if friday turns out to be the day, have a good time!

[themailman]

Anyone in the US get their mail yet today? I'm in the Midwest and it hasn't come yet. I'm thinking it'll be here in the next few hours. It's so weird just thinking the decision is OUT THERE!

I'm in New York City and no, I haven't seen anything.

[NorthernStar]

i'd love to, but i have a rehearsal. if friday turns out to be the day, have a good time!

No, I'm absolutely open to suggestions. Please everyone, propose another time.

[bad breath]

No, I'm absolutely open to suggestions. Please everyone, propose another time.

Thursday?

[Canuckonomist]

Could we do thursday, say 4pm? A late afternoon thing might be good. Unless people have real jobs...

[bad breath]

Could we do thursday, say 4pm? A late afternoon thing might be good. Unless people have real jobs...

good for me.

[StrangeLight]

I just got my results, and ended up doing surprisingly poorly. 12.7/30.

For context, which may be helpful to others, I'm starting my PhD at Toronto this fall.

I was ranked 2nd in my department going into the competition, had MA CGS, "A" undergrad GPA, slightly higher than "A" MA GPA, 2 conferences one of which was a very major one, 1 minor publication.

Someone I know working on a similar topic with equivalent grades/experience/references ended up with a 21/30. I have no idea why the SSHRC gods looked so unfavourably upon me.

it definitely sucks to not get funded, so my sympathies. i haven't applied for the SSHRC yet myself but a professor in my department spent the first five years or so working for the SSRC in the states. his job was to sort through the applications, pick out the top tier of applicants, and pass them on to whatever selection committee they had that year. in effect, he was the gatekeeper. fortunately for me, he leads grant-writing workshops every year and tells us exactly how to (and how not to) write our proposals. you'd be surprised at what little things can apparently really turn off a selection committee that reads hundreds of proposals. the SSRC is obviously different from the SSHRC, but i think the easiest way to explain the discrepancies between stats (GPAs, pubs, conferences) and scores is to assume that selection committees put a greater focus on the proposals themselves than we all may think they do.

i think what goes on those two pages actually matters to them, which is why better profiles go unfunded while worse ones get the CGS. perhaps look back at your successful MA proposal and read it next to your PhD one, see if there is any difference there in your writing style or the way you present your project.

good luck next time around, if you decide to reapply.

[NorthernStar]

good for me.

me too.

Anyone has objections or can't come at that time?

[caterinacanadese]

Works for me, too!

me too.

Anyone has objections or can't come at that time?

[alau]

it definitely sucks to not get funded, so my sympathies. i haven't applied for the SSHRC yet myself but a professor in my department spent the first five years or so working for the SSRC in the states. his job was to sort through the applications, pick out the top tier of applicants, and pass them on to whatever selection committee they had that year. in effect, he was the gatekeeper. fortunately for me, he leads grant-writing workshops every year and tells us exactly how to (and how not to) write our proposals. you'd be surprised at what little things can apparently really turn off a selection committee that reads hundreds of proposals. the SSRC is obviously different from the SSHRC, but i think the easiest way to explain the discrepancies between stats (GPAs, pubs, conferences) and scores is to assume that selection committees put a greater focus on the proposals themselves than we all may think they do.

i think what goes on those two pages actually matters to them, which is why better profiles go unfunded while worse ones get the CGS. perhaps look back at your successful MA proposal and read it next to your PhD one, see if there is any difference there in your writing style or the way you present your project.

good luck next time around, if you decide to reapply.

You are so right, my supervisor (I don't know the right translation, never thought about it... in french we say "directeur") is a reviewer for SSHRC for the regular grants. To write my application, I got help from another professor : it took me a month to get a version that was "acceptable".

It actually works in 3 steps when you go through your school : Department committee, Faculty committee, SSHRC committee. My supervisor who gives up a week in march to supervise (he's a "full professor") told me that it his to his point of view the most fair way of reviewing he ever experienced (he's not biased, he got refused for 4 years in a row). They actually have to agree on the grades that are given and explain why. It is reviewed by more than one people and they got to agree on the big grades differences. It means that the whole committee the 12.5 were reviewed in agreed on the rank you were given : he was a special case that needed more reviewing.

I suggest that some of you get some help for writing your application. It's a real subtle art. When they read it they shouldn't have to think twice. It's part of the sexyness they talk about so much.

Hope it set things straight a little.

AL

[phdland]

You should (or might want to,) find out where you are on the waitlist. I'm 1st inline in my sub-committee with a 17.9/30, and with two people possibly accepting Vaniers, I might get an award out of that (and the person next in line too, which could be you!) 17.7 is a good score. Seriously. In previous years, I've been told, 17 to 18 have been good enough for awards. 17.7 might just get you one this year.

I agree with frustration about where you were lacking. More specific info could help, but then again, there are 2000 applications, roughly.

Thanks for the reply - I don't really want to hang on to the idea for the sake of my sanity but I did email SSHRC friday to ask about where I stand on the waiting list. How did you find out where you are on the waiting list? I hear you on the 2000 apps but they must right down their scoring in some way as they are going through it - even a checklist with a numerical breakdown, just for the folks that are not awarded, would be useful. But yeah of course I understand.

[msjd]

Alau & StrangeLight,

Any specific suggestions or tips for things you heard that can really turn a committee off an application or make an application shine? Anything that was shared with you that isn't necessarily inuitive, like correct grammar? I've sat through dozens of grant writing workshops now and I'm sure I'll end up going to hundreds more in the years to come, but I'm always looking for more insights. The number one tip that's been pounded into my head is to make sure the material is accessible to a broad range of academics from different disciplines. Thanks!

[phdland]

I don't want to give people false hope or anything but my friend who won the CGS master's level last year said she was 36th on the waiting list and ended up winning the award. That said, my supervisor was really surprised I didn't get it with my score and thinks that even if small there have been some cut-backs this year or shift in focus regarding grant application content. This whole SSHRC thing is such a mystery. I love how on my letter it says that all decisions are final and you cannot even inquire about more specific reasons for the standing of an application. Does make the whole process seem rather random and potentially (very) bias.

[womanimal]

if you really really want to know what people thought about your application in great detail you can file a Freedom Of Information request to get ALL the documentation that went into the decision making process for your specific application. Notes of all discussions had about your proposal, specific comments made by reviewers etc - all available.

go to this website http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/tbsf-fsct/350-57-eng.asp and fill out the form, then mail it to sshrc. or something along those lines (i've never done it myself but thought about doing it often).

anyway, if you want the mystery solved and the details given, this is the way you can get it.

good luck.

[StrangeLight]

Alau & StrangeLight,

Any specific suggestions or tips for things you heard that can really turn a committee off an application or make an application shine? Anything that was shared with you that isn't necessarily inuitive, like correct grammar? I've sat through dozens of grant writing workshops now and I'm sure I'll end up going to hundreds more in the years to come, but I'm always looking for more insights. The number one tip that's been pounded into my head is to make sure the material is accessible to a broad range of academics from different disciplines. Thanks!

avoid any and all technical language/jargon. even if the committee reading your proposal is field-specific, there's enough diversity within the field that you don't want to get caught up in -isms.

depending on how many applications they get, the committee may not make it past your first paragraph. the first paragraph needs to catch their attention, stick in their mind, AND tell them what your project is.

never, ever, ever, ever say that the scholarship that has come before you is wrong, needs to be corrected, is misguided, etc. they hate that. even if it's true. even if your entire project is proving that X school of thought was wrong, none of the committees like hearing some upstart 1st year PhD student who hasn't even passed comps declare an established academic to be incorrect. talk about building on existing scholarship, augmenting it, reinterpreting it, but never say it's wrong.

all proposals need three things: 1) your specific, precise research question, 2) a literature review and your project's original contribution the field, 3) methodology and sources.

the lit review section. it needs to be good. you need to demonstrate clearly that you have a command over the existing work on your topic and you know exactly how your project will contribute to that body of scholarship. this, apparently, is the weak link in almost every social sciences/humanities proposal, so if yours is good, it'll stand out. you need to do more than say "it's worth knowing because no one's done it yet." that's the default answer. as much as it may pain some historians, it helps to be a presentist and explain why your project is worth doing.

the methodology section. simple enough for the social sciences, but humanities students have a hard time explaining what their methodology is. with such little space to go around, it's easy to just skip this, but you shouldn't. if you do archival work, for example, and have already visited some archives and checked some collections, then state specifically that you went to X on Y date and are familiar with the sources necessary for your project. you need to prove that your project is doable.

that's all i've got for general stuff. i was told to start working on the proposal 6 months minimum before it's due. to go through multiple revisions with a variety of professors giving edits.

[alau]

avoid any and all technical language/jargon. even if the committee reading your proposal is field-specific, there's enough diversity within the field that you don't want to get caught up in -isms.

depending on how many applications they get, the committee may not make it past your first paragraph. the first paragraph needs to catch their attention, stick in their mind, AND tell them what your project is.

never, ever, ever, ever say that the scholarship that has come before you is wrong, needs to be corrected, is misguided, etc. they hate that. even if it's true. even if your entire project is proving that X school of thought was wrong, none of the committees like hearing some upstart 1st year PhD student who hasn't even passed comps declare an established academic to be incorrect. talk about building on existing scholarship, augmenting it, reinterpreting it, but never say it's wrong.

all proposals need three things: 1) your specific, precise research question, 2) a literature review and your project's original contribution the field, 3) methodology and sources.

the lit review section. it needs to be good. you need to demonstrate clearly that you have a command over the existing work on your topic and you know exactly how your project will contribute to that body of scholarship. this, apparently, is the weak link in almost every social sciences/humanities proposal, so if yours is good, it'll stand out. you need to do more than say "it's worth knowing because no one's done it yet." that's the default answer. as much as it may pain some historians, it helps to be a presentist and explain why your project is worth doing.

the methodology section. simple enough for the social sciences, but humanities students have a hard time explaining what their methodology is. with such little space to go around, it's easy to just skip this, but you shouldn't. if you do archival work, for example, and have already visited some archives and checked some collections, then state specifically that you went to X on Y date and are familiar with the sources necessary for your project. you need to prove that your project is doable.

that's all i've got for general stuff. i was told to start working on the proposal 6 months minimum before it's due. to go through multiple revisions with a variety of professors giving edits.

I agree. Overall the main point is to make it easy to understand. If you use jargon, explain. You need to make yourself clear. No second guessing. You should be able to read it in one shot without having any interrogations (what does he/she mean?). Its the main point : coherence, clarity and rigor.

[Tropes]

Given that it's so short, I wouldn't think of including a "lit review" as a section in your proposal, but rather weaving in your knowledge of the field within your explanation of your own project, which is what they are interested in.

[euges116]

Going into 3rd year management here in Toronto. Just checked my mail (was out of town), scored 18.5/30, got the "normal" SSHRC ($20,000) for two years! Didn't get the OGS, but this makes up for it!

Here's my stats, 3.9 GPA, 1 forthcoming book chapter, 2 articles under review at A journals, and about 6 poster/paper presentations at A conferences. I must admit that I didn't put too much effort in my program of study, which may have dragged my score down a bit...

Edited May 10, 2010 by euges720

[Phalène]

Finally received my letter:

1. Received SDF ($20k x 3 years), score 18.1

2. Ottawa

3. Letter received: May 7th; Letter postmarked: May 5th; Letter dated: May 3rd.

4. Subject area and/or committee: Sociology

5. Applied from within university

6. Year in PhD studies when you would take up the award (so, what you’ll be in Sept/Oct. 2010): 2nd year PhD

7. Taylor, Ross, or Queen's Fellowship?? Nope

8. Anything else you want to include that might be helpful: 2 conference presentation, 4 non peer reviewed publications, 3 time winner of OGS, straight As all the way through (including all of undergrad), Big Name supervisor, 'sexy topic' (commercialization of academic research)

[RaaR]

I agree. Overall the main point is to make it easy to understand. If you use jargon, explain. You need to make yourself clear. No second guessing. You should be able to read it in one shot without having any interrogations (what does he/she mean?). Its the main point : coherence, clarity and rigor.

Here's my tip for a good proposal (among the other excellent suggestions brought up here previously) [it is strictly from my own experience]:

Be very enthustiastic about working with somebody specific at the institution you're applying to (for the purposes of the application), explain why you'd like to work with him/her, etc. - then, get him to be one of your referees, and make sure he says the same about you (i.e. he's enthusiastic about working with you as well). This can be your honors-thesis supervisor in undergrad (if you're applying to MA, or straight to PhD), or your MA thesis supervisor, or somebody you worked for as a research assistant. I followed the advice of someone who has been on the SSHRC committees, and done this for both the MA and Doctoral competitions, and I think it made a difference in both times.

This is something that goes a bit beyond the good grades, publications, interesting proposal, etc. (that I assume almost all of the final candidates present). It shows the committee that there's a good match presented here (between the student and the potential supervisor), which would possibly lead to productive research (more so than in other cases)

Edited May 10, 2010 by RaaR

[Canuckonomist]

Finally received my letter:

1. Received SDF ($20k x 3 years), score 18.1

2. Ottawa

3. Letter received: May 7th; Letter postmarked: May 5th; Letter dated: May 3rd.

4. Subject area and/or committee: Sociology

5. Applied from within university

6. Year in PhD studies when you would take up the award (so, what you’ll be in Sept/Oct. 2010): 2nd year PhD

7. Taylor, Ross, or Queen's Fellowship?? Nope

8. Anything else you want to include that might be helpful: 2 conference presentation, 4 non peer reviewed publications, 3 time winner of OGS, straight As all the way through (including all of undergrad), Big Name supervisor, 'sexy topic' (commercialization of academic research)

I think it's possible that you and I were in the same subcommittee, and you narrowly beat me by one or two spots (17.9, first on waitlist). I wish my topic was sexy.

[sshrchopeful]

found out I'm third on the waitlist.

How should I feel?