NSF GRFP 2017-18

[grilledcheese1]

11 minutes ago, GoldenDog said:

At least it's not like NSF GRIP/GROW where they accidentally notified everyone that they had won, and then backpedaled. 

 

 

What??  That's awful!!!

[GoldenDog]

6 minutes ago, grilledcheese1 said:

What??  That's awful!!!

Hah, you can check it out here.

[Behavecol]

29 minutes ago, GoldenDog said:

At least it's not like NSF GRIP/GROW where they accidentally notified everyone that they had won, and then backpedaled. 

 

 

Oh gosh!! That’s horrendous! 

[Bayesian1701]

That's like everyone's worse nightmare right?  I held off on telling people I was accepted to grad school until I got the official notification because I was afraid it was a mistake.  

[fpga_bored]

10 hours ago, nanograd said:

"people like you" --- you mean people extremely enthusiastic about their work that they spent weeks to months on an application so that they can dedicate 3 years of full-time study to bettering themselves and the field? Who are anxiously awaiting the results and seeking solidarity in an online forum? Who are joyous to be around because their passion is oozing from their every facet? --- Yeah who would want to be around people like that. Not me. 
Also, how are "get a date" and "do something worthwhile" synonymous? For those as passionate as we are, we can simultaneously be in a successful relationship and be doing something extremely worthwhile to ourselves -- pursuing our passions. But you're right. I better go get a date from the bar scene around town and then go do something worthwhile like troll a Gradcafe forum.  

EDIT: For clarity, I am defending all of those who wish to vent and find solace here on this forum, NOT feeding the troll. 

hey that guy *went* to stanford

Edited March 26, 2018 by fpga_bored

[fpga_bored]

6 hours ago, Bayesian1701 said:

@fpga_bored  Do you have any ideas on where to scrape.  There are some results in the survey but they aren't very detailed.

Here's hoping for a Tuesday release.

 

I'm thinking that whenever the NSF gets around to updating the fastlane portal, grabbing all of the available data from all previous years...then getting some data on each of the applicants with online profiles like linkedin/etc...and since Alex Lang (at least him but maybe others) have their own data sources of essays online, incorporating those into the database. So then we would be able to match up a text source and other attributes with awarded / not awarded, allowing us to predict the likelihood of our applications being awarded. 

 

This is just an initial idea, feel free to criticize or improve upon on it. 

[Bayesian1701]

@fpga_bored  Hopefully we can get enough data on rejected applications.  I wonder how many people with similar profiles to the awarded candidates get rejected.  I also wish there were more math/stat people on Alex Lang's website.  

[psychpride9]

I'm still assuming that if there's no maintenance message by tomorrow at 9pm, it's not gonna be Tuesday - though this may just be a method for me to feel some control over the arbitrary release date, lol #relatablethoright? 

[mparrish429]

4 minutes ago, psychpride9 said:

I'm still assuming that if there's no maintenance message by tomorrow at 9pm, it's not gonna be Tuesday - though this may just be a method for me to feel some control over the arbitrary release date, lol #relatablethoright? 

I'm operating under this assumption as well.

[Sciencerocks]

That guy who made that “pathetic” comment, while insensitive, does make a good point. It seems that there are a lot of people on this blog that are desperate to receive fellowship results and to be funded for graduate school. Do you think that this reflects the overall desperation of the scientific community to keep science funded?

Also, why did they delete their comment? Is that the way the world is going, where we censor opinions if they don’t align with our own? I think their post is hilarious.. The response to their post, though, seems like internet stalking. Just my opinion. Hope I don’t get censored.

 

[nanograd]

36 minutes ago, Sciencerocks said:

That guy who made that “pathetic” comment, while insensitive, does make a good point. It seems that there are a lot of people on this blog that are desperate to receive fellowship results and to be funded for graduate school. Do you think that this reflects the overall desperation of the scientific community to keep science funded?

Also, why did they delete their comment? Is that the way the world is going, where we censor opinions if they don’t align with our own? I think their post is hilarious.. The response to their post, though, seems like internet stalking. Just my opinion. Hope I don’t get censored.

 

It was deleted as to not derail this forum, which it obviously already has ? but i do agree. The scientific community is deperate for funding. However, alot of us are funded already for grad school, but this fellowship will allow for us to maintain funding without teaching requirements, which is huge.

Reasons for funding desparation are that the things people are trying to get funded are not necessary research imo. But that doesnt stop our passion and curiosity for our fields; something that will always drive us to try to get funding for research that shouldnt be funded when our nation is in so much debt.

[PizzaCat93]

1 hour ago, nanograd said:

Reasons for funding desparation are that the things people are trying to get funded are not necessary research imo. But that doesnt stop our passion and curiosity for our fields; something that will always drive us to try to get funding for research that shouldnt be funded when our nation is in so much debt.

Past winner here and current student. Sorry, but I've got to come out of the woodwork to question your comment. What do you mean by "research that shouldn't be funded?" Research is a public good, and that is why the government should fund it -- to incentivize its production. I know a GRFP grant seems like a ton of money to you, but as you can see here (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/), the "science" section of the federal budget is only 1% of the entire budget. That includes NSF, NASA, DOE, etc. Cutting NSF funding would do next to nothing to stop the federal debt. Plus, you're assuming that debt it as a bad thing; I won't go into that too much, but many developed countries in the world do not have balanced budgets. Most individuals don't either (mortgage, car payments, etc.). The reason people here and elsewhere are desperate for the GRFP or other grants is because in some fields (natural sciences), you need funding to go to grad school or do any research at all, and in other fields, such as mine, it has a huge impact on your career trajectory. That's why people are freaking out. 

Edited March 26, 2018 by PizzaCat93

[nanograd]

Alot to unwrap there 

For clarity, I am a chemist and I love science in every way. It has truly changed my life and I am forever grateful. But I see both sides of this argument and cannot be biased towards my own career development. 

12 minutes ago, PizzaCat93 said:

Cutting NSF funding would do next to nothing to stop the federal debt. Plus, you're assuming that debt it as a bad thing; I won't go into that too much, but many developed countries in the world do not have balanced budgets. Most individuals don't either (mortgage, car payments, etc.). 

I am sorry, but in no way do I think debt is a good thing. We would be much better off with zero debt ie living within our means. And right now, the debt is insane. I agree that cutting government funding will not help our nation's debt. But I am talking about the academic industry as a whole. We are over-producing PhDs, as well as BA/BS students. And continuing to pump funding into research only drives this siphoning of funds from kids who will see little return on their time spent earning a degree which has been devalued. 

17 minutes ago, PizzaCat93 said:

 The reason people here and elsewhere are desperate for the GRFP or other grants is because in some fields (natural sciences), you need funding to go to grad school or do any research at all, and in other fields, such as mine, it has a huge impact on your career trajectory. That's why people are freaking out. 

Perhaps this is a good thing, though. Starting to discourage the natural and social sciences from continual PhD pumping. We are in an age where knowledge is so readily available. You can teach yourself anything you want to know; anyone can make a career online from scratch and some hard work, or at least with only a BA/BS. 

[Bayesian1701]

My reasons for wanting NSF GRFP are because it or another similar fellowship are my only option for an RAship to work on my problem.  I am in stats where enough grant money to support students is rare if your not a Ivy League level of school.  So people usually teaching for their entire careers or if they are really lucky get an RA when they are working on their dissertation.  This fellowship would give me freedom and that is something I desperately want.   I am funded at a livable stipend if I teach but I would get extra money with the fellowship which would be nice.  I want to work on my proposal so bad and I know I can’t the research like I want to while teaching.  That’s why I am still hopeful that maybe I have a chance because I actually have three years of independent research experience as an undergraduate senior while most people in my field have just an REU.  My department has NEVER had a winner and I am a woman and hopefully those things will help me. 

[mars667]

I don't think the reasons behind applicant hopefulness are as complicated as all that (at least not for everyone). I only made waitlists, which tbh is still a pleasant surprise (high school drop out over here).  I'm crossing my fingers for a grf so that I can maybe actually turn one of those waitlists into an acceptance. A grfp award will open a lot of doors for a lot of people, and give them opportunities they may not have had otherwise. Seems pretty simple to me.

Also, does impatience necessarily suggest desperation? I don't think so. I think it's perfectly reasonable to be excited about something that could potentially have a pretty big impact on your career/life. 

Edit to add that the negativity popping up in this forum is pretty disappointing. As nsf grfp applicants, we each had to include statements on how we hope to improve diversity and retention in our respective fields; some of the comments being made here are just mean and seem to go against nsf's values of supporting fellow scientists. If you can't support the excitement of your peers, how can you expect to support and encourage the excitement of younger generations of scientists? But what do I know........I'll end this rant with some words of wisdom that I feel are applicable to this situation (and pretty much all situations): "be excellent to each other"

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by mars667

[slavsquat]

1 hour ago, nanograd said:

We are over-producing PhDs, as well as BA/BS students. And continuing to pump funding into research only drives this siphoning of funds from kids who will see little return on their time spent earning a degree which has been devalued. 

where are you getting the numbers to back this?  it really depends on your field of study. if we're talking about finding jobs, in engineering and science such results were found (here):

"A special analysis of the 2010 SDR data found that only 2.1% of Ph.D. scientists and engineers were unemployed 2 years after earning their degrees. And that number drops to 1.9% for those 3 to 5 years beyond their degree."

this is super unrelated to the original thread obviously, but i think that claim you're making is bold especially on this particular thread

[nanograd]

19 minutes ago, slavsquat said:

this is super unrelated to the original thread obviously, but i think that claim you're making is bold especially on this particular thread

It is quite bold, I know, but my reasoning is as follows. 

I am a bit of a minimalist, and I think we can do the same work ("we" = PhD workforce as a whole; all fields, academia+industry. "work" = pursuit of scientific and technological advancement) with much less. We don't need as many professors in academia if we stop encouraging everyone and their brother into getting a bachelor's degree, and instead offer some technical secondary school and beyond options, to help save trades which are necessary and dying. We will need less funding for PIs, and thus smaller incoming PhD classes. 

I'm not saying there aren't jobs out there, but I am posing the question; were these jobs created so that PhDs could work, or were PhDs created so they could do these jobs? 
I'm just offering up my opinions here to stir up some thoughts in some young bright minds, not saying I am right or wrong. 

Edited March 26, 2018 by nanograd
grammar

[slavsquat]

4 minutes ago, nanograd said:

It is quite bold, I know, but my reasoning is as follows. 

I am a bit of a minimalist, and I think we can do the same work ("we" = PhD workforce as a whole; all fields, academia+industry. "work" = pursuit of scientific and technological advancement) with much less. We don't need as many professors in academia if we stop encouraging everyone and their brother into getting a bachelor's degree, and instead offer some technical secondary school and beyond options, to help save trades which are necessary and dying. We will need less funding for PIs, and thus smaller incoming PhD classes. 

I'm not saying their aren't jobs out there, but I am posing the question; were these jobs created so that PhDs could work, or were PhDs created so they could do these jobs? 
I'm just offering up my opinions here to stir up some thoughts in some young bright minds, not saying I am right or wrong. 

i mean i completely agree about the trades aspect. i am the daughter of an electrician and i see the value of it very clearly, especially with it dying out in america.

however, there are people who want a PhD for other reasons then to become a professor- such as getting certain jobs in industrial fields. just a thought because academic isn't the only option. 

[nanograd]

11 minutes ago, slavsquat said:

i mean i completely agree about the trades aspect. i am the daughter of an electrician and i see the value of it very clearly, especially with it dying out in america.

however, there are people who want a PhD for other reasons then to become a professor- such as getting certain jobs in industrial fields. just a thought because academic isn't the only option. 

And we can encourage the pursuit of PhDs for such careers through the lessening of the draw towards being a PI (ie less funding and less positions because we have less of a BA/BS load). Kind of like making PhDs more of a training and learning experience, as they should be, with a few great PIs per generation. (Again, I know, bold and not the most favorable way to look at it.) 

[cemeterydr1ve]

4 hours ago, Sciencerocks said:

That guy who made that “pathetic” comment, while insensitive, does make a good point. It seems that there are a lot of people on this blog that are desperate to receive fellowship results and to be funded for graduate school. Do you think that this reflects the overall desperation of the scientific community to keep science funded?

 

I’ll be another to add that funding “desperation” has nothing to do with why I applied for the NSF GRFP. I already have a pretty nice funding situation because the PIs in the lab I’m in are great at getting grants. I want it for the accomplishment and honor; it is a great honor, after all. And, of course, getting one fellowship tends to lead to success with future fellowships. Finally, if I get my own funding, then obviously it is icing on the cake for my advisors because the money that’s been set aside for me can go towards funding a future incoming student.  

[Bayesian1701]

25 minutes ago, slavsquat said:

where are you getting the numbers to back this?  it really depends on your field of study. if we're talking about finding jobs, in engineering and science such results were found (here):

"A special analysis of the 2010 SDR data found that only 2.1% of Ph.D. scientists and engineers were unemployed 2 years after earning their degrees. And that number drops to 1.9% for those 3 to 5 years beyond their degree."

this is super unrelated to the original thread obviously, but i think that claim you're making is bold especially on this particular thread

1 hour ago, nanograd said:

Alot to unwrap there 

For clarity, I am a chemist and I love science in every way. It has truly changed my life and I am forever grateful. But I see both sides of this argument and cannot be biased towards my own career development. 

I am sorry, but in no way do I think debt is a good thing. We would be much better off with zero debt ie living within our means. And right now, the debt is insane. I agree that cutting government funding will not help our nation's debt. But I am talking about the academic industry as a whole. We are over-producing PhDs, as well as BA/BS students. And continuing to pump funding into research only drives this siphoning of funds from kids who will see little return on their time spent earning a degree which has been devalued. 

Perhaps this is a good thing, though. Starting to discourage the natural and social sciences from continual PhD pumping. We are in an age where knowledge is so readily available. You can teach yourself anything you want to know; anyone can make a career online from scratch and some hard work, or at least with only a BA/BS. 

I am antideficit but cutting NSF funding is not the way to do it in my opinion.  You could probably save more money by being more efficient when it comes to the big expenses:  defense, entitlements,  and bureaucracy.   Banning student loans for for profit programs would also save a ton of money since a lot of for profit graduates default and have tons of debt.  I think the NSF is important because we need basic research for our society to advance.  I don’t think we are inventing research jobs with NSF that wouldn’t have existed otherwise.  There are over saturated fields and under saturated ones.  Maybe in some fields where industry opportunities are low we are producing too many PhDs but I think there is a case for a shortage in certain fields where industry demand is high (stats, cs).  Also a 2.1% unemployment rate is pretty good.  The goal unemployment rate they always talked about in my economic classes (it was my minor) is 3-5% so that the market can be fluid.  That probably indicates to few PhDs over not enough.  

[slavsquat]

6 minutes ago, Bayesian1701 said:

I am antideficit but cutting NSF funding is not the way to do it in my opinion.  You could probably save more money by being more efficient when it comes to the big expenses:  defense, entitlements,  and bureaucracy.   Banning student loans for for profit programs would also save a ton of money since a lot of for profit graduates default and have tons of debt.  I think the NSF is important because we need basic research for our society to advance.  I don’t think we are inventing research jobs with NSF that wouldn’t have existed otherwise.  There are over saturated fields and under saturated ones.  Maybe in some fields where industry opportunities are low we are producing too many PhDs but I think there is a case for a shortage in certain fields where industry demand is high (stats, cs).  Also a 2.1% unemployment rate is pretty good.  The goal unemployment rate they always talked about in my economic classes (it was my minor) is 3-5% so that the market can be fluid.  That probably indicates to few PhDs over not enough.  

i agree with you on all of that 100%

[nanograd]

9 minutes ago, Bayesian1701 said:

I am antideficit but cutting NSF funding is not the way to do it in my opinion.  You could probably save more money by being more efficient when it comes to the big expenses:  defense, entitlements,  and bureaucracy.   Banning student loans for for profit programs would also save a ton of money since a lot of for profit graduates default and have tons of debt.  I think the NSF is important because we need basic research for our society to advance.  I don’t think we are inventing research jobs with NSF that wouldn’t have existed otherwise.  There are over saturated fields and under saturated ones.  Maybe in some fields where industry opportunities are low we are producing too many PhDs but I think there is a case for a shortage in certain fields where industry demand is high (stats, cs).  Also a 2.1% unemployment rate is pretty good.  The goal unemployment rate they always talked about in my economic classes (it was my minor) is 3-5% so that the market can be fluid.  That probably indicates to few PhDs over not enough.  

CS and stats are two of the fields I think we need a lot more minds investing in. It is the future. But I still stand by my word that most everything can be self-taught with the current internet and knowledge availability. I am all for the GRFP, I was talking about continual funding of PIs by NSF. Yes basic research is a need, but as I've stated, we can certainly do more with less. I don't think NSF should be cut, as discussed above it will have almost zero effect on government spending. 

And yes I absolutely agree with cutting the major expenses as well to control government spending. But cutting the BA and BS overproduction won't be done without some serious effort, as it is a massive business that cares only about number of students they can pump out and suck money out of. That will have a trickle-up effect that will help tune us into the fields with the highest demands. 

[hurryskurry]

1 hour ago, nanograd said:

It is quite bold, I know, but my reasoning is as follows. 

I am a bit of a minimalist, and I think we can do the same work ("we" = PhD workforce as a whole; all fields, academia+industry. "work" = pursuit of scientific and technological advancement) with much less. We don't need as many professors in academia if we stop encouraging everyone and their brother into getting a bachelor's degree, and instead offer some technical secondary school and beyond options, to help save trades which are necessary and dying. We will need less funding for PIs, and thus smaller incoming PhD classes. 

I'm not saying there aren't jobs out there, but I am posing the question; were these jobs created so that PhDs could work, or were PhDs created so they could do these jobs? 
I'm just offering up my opinions here to stir up some thoughts in some young bright minds, not saying I am right or wrong. 

I'm confused by this. If the trades are necessary, but dying, then the supply of labor for those trades will increase as wages for those trades increases. Especially since automation may possibly take over 800 million jobs worldwide by 2030. 

Trades don't produce knowledge, so they can't be a source of long term growth. Trades operate on existing technologies, they don't create new technologies or transform economic sectors. Think about the discovery and research into GFP, restriction enzymes, or CRISPR, all which started as basic science research, and resulted in transforming technologies, which wouldn't have happened in industry. 

And an actual real concern might be the appropriation of funds, rather than the total amount. 

Edited March 26, 2018 by hurryskurry

[Bayesian1701]

What time of day do maintenance notices usually appear?  There is nothing yet.  I signed in to my grfp fastlane account to see if there was anything I needed to do with the changes that came out today and it didn't look any different.