NSF GRFP 2008

[materialgirl]

Hmm...I'm really sorry about your research advisor. My advice is to definitely try to work for someone else! Beyond that, I'm pretty clueless about transferring :roll:

Can anyone answer this question about accepting the NSF? I applied under Bioengineering, with a personal statement that talked about being at the interface between materials science & engineering and bioE. But I've decided to go into a Materials Science & Engineering department for grad school. Does anyone know if I'll have trouble accepting the NSF because of this? I want to ask Operations but I'm afraid that if I don't ask carefully I'll get shut down before getting to argue my case.

[snowcapk]

Cherrifaery, I would discuss this with the dean of graduate studies (DGS), department chair, or any other authority you trust at your school. Limit the number of professors that you mention these problems to, for the obvious reasons. When you discuss with the DGS or whatever, say that you have not had contact with your adviser in months and that he has not discussed possible thesis projects with you. Explain that you have tried to discuss project proposals with him, but "his eyes glaze over" &c. Do not discuss your revelation that he has sabotaged your GRFP application, because that is actually a minor concern compared to the fact that he is not concerning himself with your work in his lab, and because it will bring up a conversation or at least plant a doubt about how your adviser came about this opinion. One question that comes up for me, and probably will for the DGS, is: what have you done in this lab all year, and how did you do it without your adviser's help? Be prepared to answer that with examples that show that you have really tried to make progress in the lab.

Ask what your options are. Could you start in a different lab if you identified another adviser? If you can frame an interest in another PI in terms of a shift in research interest since entering the program, be sure to say so. If you decide to transfer, will the DGS support you? Ask for advice in discussing the problem with your adviser.

[snowcapk]

Does anyone know if I'll have trouble accepting the NSF because of this? I want to ask Operations but I'm afraid that if I don't ask carefully I'll get shut down before getting to argue my case.

Material girl, I think they will accept the change - in fact, I don't see it as a change. You might as well ask, because they will know which department you're in when they send the checks and when you send in progress reports. I seriously think this is a non-issue, even if your future adviser is not a bioengineer in any sense.

[chillaxitive2]

have people gotten their username/pass emailed to them for their rating sheets? i haven't gotten mine yet

[materialgirl]

Thanks, Snowcapk. I just called them and it turns out you're completely right--there's no issue with using the award for another field. Seems strange, but I'll take it!

Chillaxitive2, I got mine this morning...I don't know if anyone else is missing his/hers.

[snowcapk]

Chillaxitive2, I got mine this morning...I don't know if anyone else is missing his/hers.

I got mine, too, Chillaxitive...try calling the Operations Office?

[jessie474747]

Just discovered this board - would have been awesome last week when I was freaking out in solitude. My NSF story - applied last year in cognitive psychology, didn't get it - not even HM. I reapplied this year in "Social Science (other - Science Ed)" and got it

I second what others have said about Broader Impacts. I didn't have to spin my project/experience too much b/c I was formerly a public school teacher and my research relates directly to elementary science ed. However, one of my advisers (an NSF panelist) said its important that the Broader Impact piece is crystal clear and, ironically, as specific as possible. "My research will help kids learn" is not as good as "my work will be of great interest to curriculum developers and educators because..." He also helped me revise my essays to prioritize intellectual maturity and rigor over enthusiasm. They actually don't really care or want to know about how much you love science. It seems to be much more about convincing them that you can develop a solid research plan and that you are well positioned to make it happen. Sidenote - I hear that they don't even care whether you end up doing the project you propose. They fund the student, not the project.

I looked at my rating sheets today (from last year and this year). Last year, one reviewer gave me an excellent (on merit) and a very good (on broader impacts); the other gave me two goods and some snarky comment about how the project I proposed had been done before (it hadn't). This year, I got two excellents from one, an excellent (broader impact) and a very good (intellectual merit) from another...and the third gave me excellent on broader impact but good on intellectual merit - said my project sounded like a "pilot study" and completely misread my proposal (misidentified my dependent variable even though it was in the title). The funny thing - my amateur handwriting analysis suggests that this hasty reviewer is noneother than last year's snarky "good" giver. The handwriting is identical! Either a huge coincidence or the NSF panelist pool is very small.

Anyway - for those undergrads or first year grad students who didn't get it this year, my advice is to apply again even if you aren't sure about your qualifications. I wasn't worried about my grades, GREs, experience or recommendations, but I haven't published (2 in press) and have only presented at a couple conferences. If your particular proposal resonates with your particular reviewers, you've got a good chance.

[hepton]

Cherrifaery, I just wanted to say your initial post is about the calmest I could have possibly imagined in that situation. Major kudos for no references to power tools, waterboarding, or strangulation. I think snowcapk's advice is very good, about trying to find someone in your department who can mediate between you and your advisor. I suppose I would try to make progress on the overall dynamic between yourself and your advisor (with outside help if possible) before enquiring about that particular comment on the rec. I don't really have anything else to add other than to say some anonymous dude on the internet sympathizes with you and admires your composure.

[sigh]

...He also helped me revise my essays to prioritize intellectual maturity and rigor over enthusiasm. They actually don't really care or want to know about how much you love science. It seems to be much more about convincing them that you can develop a solid research plan and that you are well positioned to make it happen.

My comments seem to back this up. In retrospect, I'd say I took the enthusiastic approach. I had one reviewer who loved me, while the other two were quick to point out that my actual, concrete accomplishments and plans weren't quite up to snuff.

[McNutt]

Reviewer #2: "The application would be strengthened by a discussion of steps should unanticipated results occur."

Reviewer #3: "The applicant has a clear understanding of the research he proposes and has included alternate approaches in case of difficulty."

:roll:

[thunderbelly]

two of my reviews are absolutely glowing and one clearly didn't understand the proposal. It's hard to be unhappy with an honorable mention but geez... I can't help feeling like one poseur idiot kept me from this wonderful accomplishment.

oh well, eh?

EDIT: just read back over cherrifaery's woes. Sorry about that, cf. At least my idiot is an anonymous idiot.

[LeNea]

I got honorable mention; the criticism two reviewers offered was that I had no publication record and had only presented my work at poster sessions and talks. I did a lot of varied undergrad research summers (REUs, CDC, but no papers), and the lab I was in during the school year wasn't so focused on publication for undergrads. I didn't get any publications out of my three rotations my first year of graduate school (8 weeks isn't long) and didn't make publication-worthy progress on my thesis in the six months between joining a lab and the NSF coming due, so, no, I don't have any papers yet. Most students in my department don't publish before the end of the third year. So if you can push something, anything, out the door before you apply next year, DO IT.