NSF GRFP 2017-18

[engineerwoacause]

Oddly enough, the maintenance period did change a bit. From 10pm to 8am now..

Edited March 24, 2018 by engineerwoacause

[nc61]

1 hour ago, engineerwoacause said:

Oddly enough, the maintenance period did change a bit. From 10pm to 8am now..

I want to get off NSF's Wild Ride

[Behavecol]

9 hours ago, engineerwoacause said:

Oddly enough, the maintenance period did change a bit. From 10pm to 8am now..

Mine still says 8pm-12pm. Where are you seeing this?

Edited March 24, 2018 by Behavecol

[engineerwoacause]

7 minutes ago, Behavecol said:

Mine still says 8pm-12pm. Where are you seeing this?

If you tried to access Fastlane homepage last night, that’s the message you received. 

[Behavecol]

47 minutes ago, engineerwoacause said:

If you tried to access Fastlane homepage last night, that’s the message you received. 

Ohh okay! Weird that it changed to that last night and then back again this morning.

[engineerwoacause]

Newest update. But probably unrelated..just like filling in my fellow anxiety-ridden friends 

[northernchild]

Yeah, I think that's just further confirmation that they've just been working on the registration/account changes or whatever.

[grilledcheese1]

Had a nightmare last night that I got rejected and my GRFP reviewers completely trashed me, saying my application was a joke and that I was too stupid for academia and should leave ASAP.  This anxiety is getting ridiculous

Edited March 24, 2018 by grilledcheese1

[harshingig]

1 hour ago, TheonlyJman said:

I really hope that none of you that are posting on here get the grfp. You are pathetic. Go get a date or do something worthwhile. Seriously rethinking whether I want to spend the next 4-6 years of my life interacting with people like you.

You don't bring much to the table with that arrogant insulting attitude either TheonlyJman aka Jordan Rich. Who would want to spend their time interacting with you being a shortsighted asshole labeling everyone on this forum as the same? I hope others at the Utah School of Medicine are better human beings.

Edited March 25, 2018 by harshingig

[grilledcheese1]

54 minutes ago, TheonlyJman said:

I really hope that none of you that are posting on here get the grfp. You are pathetic. Go get a date or do something worthwhile. Seriously rethinking whether I want to spend the next 4-6 years of my life interacting with people like you.

You should have rethought posting your LinkedIn pic as your profile pic.  Lol.

[carlsaganism]

3 hours ago, TheonlyJman said:

I really hope that none of you that are posting on here get the grfp. You are pathetic. Go get a date or do something worthwhile. Seriously rethinking whether I want to spend the next 4-6 years of my life interacting with people like you.

if you look anything like your profile picture, then it must be hard for you to find a date. Is that also the photo for your SeniorMatch.com profile?

You are also about as smart as you look. You go to Utah School of Medicine? No wonder the salt =)

Edited March 25, 2018 by carlsaganism

[Eigen]

Don't feed trolls, people. 

If you cross the line responding to trolls, it will still get you a warning. Being baited doesn't excuse it. 

Report posts and then continue to ignore them. 

[nanograd]

10 hours ago, TheonlyJman said:

I really hope that none of you that are posting on here get the grfp. You are pathetic. Go get a date or do something worthwhile. Seriously rethinking whether I want to spend the next 4-6 years of my life interacting with people like you.

"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. 

Edited March 25, 2018 by nanograd
see EDIT

[Eigen]

Responding to trolls is pretty much the definition of feeding them. It perpetuates the thread derailing, and makes cleaning up the posts and mess that much harder. 

Report and move on. 

[harshingig]

Seriously? I get a warning from a moderator for that? Ridiculous. I suggest if that troll does end up on the winners list someone report him to the NSF. I find it disturbing that someone like that would end up in one of my academic circles. There is a small chance it could be a fake user framing someone but it should be reported and investigated. I thought we could be censored so I took a screen shot if anyone wants it. I created an account on this forum because i found it so disturbing.

IMO, this forum protected the troll and contributed to a further mess in the real world by deleting his post rather than just banning.

Edited March 25, 2018 by harshingig

[mparrish429]

If results don't come out this upcoming week, that would make this year later than any year since 2011. So here's hoping!

[fpga_bored]

On 3/23/2018 at 10:00 AM, Bayesian1701 said:

True, but correlation indicates slightly more evidence for a causal relationship than no correlation.  

If only I had real data on chances and release dates to do something.  I feel helpless because I can't run the numbers.  

You're not wrong. Maybe we should start scraping a dataset? 

[Bayesian1701]

@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.

 

[STEMed13]

If it isn't announced this week, I may dissolve into a puddle of stress. The deadline for the graduate program that I applied to was March 15th (they don't look at applications until then) and they should make a decision any day now. Not knowing about the grad program or NSF is killing me. SO MUCH UNCERTAINTY 

Edited March 25, 2018 by STEMed13

[GoldenDog]

2 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.

 

You can go through web archives and see NSF website from different dates to get application due dates, award notification, number of applicants, etc for at least the last 5 years or so. 

[Bayesian1701]

On 2/25/2018 at 7:21 PM, Bayesian1701 said:

Does anyone else want to guess the release date?

Here are the historical dates (thanks @Spaghettyohz for the dates from 2009-2016):

• 2017: Friday,  March 17
• 2016: Tuesday, March 29
• 2015: Tuesday, March 31
• 2014: Tuesday, April 1
• 2013: Friday, March 29
• 2012: Friday, March 30
• 2011: Tuesday, April 5
• 2010: Tuesday, April 6
• 2009: Friday, April 10

I am going to go with Friday March 23rd.  That's the average of dates from the past two years.  We are down to approximately 3 to 5 weeks of waiting left!

 

On 3/7/2018 at 9:54 AM, GoldenDog said:

I think if you look closely at solicitations and old grfp website, it seems like the first application due dates for the application were as follows:

• 2018: Oct 22
• 2017: Oct 23 (13K applicants)
• 2016: Oct 26 (17K applicants)
• 2015: Oct 29 (16.5K applicants)
• 2014: Nov 4 (14K applicants)
• 2013: Nov 13
• 2012: Nov 14
• 2011: Nov 15
• 2010: Nov  2
• 2009: Nov 3 

If I was to guess, probably it'll be about the same time as last year. Also, the 2017-2018 are on the same solicitation so probably review process runs the same. This with Hurricane Irma and that Saturday-Tuesday Govt shutdown. If I was going to conclude anything, its that this type of analysis isn't super helpful or healthy ha ha. 

So the best thing I can think of to do right now is to figure out the processing time,  add 5 business days excluding holidays for the various delays (1 government shutdown,  2 weather closures,  and 2 days of extra processing of the hurricane-affected applications.  I don't think there were any major delays (at least not multiple ones) in 2014, 2015, 2016, or 2017, but let me know if there is anything you know of.

I came up with two methods:  one assuming a linear relationship between number and processing time,  and another which is basically an average processing time.

2014:  100 business days of processing,  so 0.007 days per applicant

2015: 100 business days of processing,  so 0.006 days per applicant

2016: 104 business days of processing, so  0.006 days per applicant

2017: 98 business days of processing, some 0.007 days per applicant

Applicant Based:  So let's say 0.0065 days per applicant assume 14k applicants, which makes 91 days with no delays and 96 with delays which was March 11 so rounded to March 13,  but that didn't happen.

Pattern Based:  Let's assume it takes approximately 100 business days rounded to the nearest Tuesday/Friday to release winners, we get 105 days of processing after adjusting for the delays, giving a date of 3/26 which is a Monday so round to Tuesday and get 3/27, this Tuesday.  

So this indicates it is coming very soon but the error on this is probably plus or minus a week.  

 

[GoldenDog]

1 hour ago, Bayesian1701 said:

 

So the best thing I can think of to do right now is to figure out the processing time,  add 5 business days excluding holidays for the various delays (1 government shutdown,  2 weather closures,  and 2 days of extra processing of the hurricane-affected applications.  I don't think there were any major delays (at least not multiple ones) in 2014, 2015, 2016, or 2017, but let me know if there is anything you know of.

I came up with two methods:  one assuming a linear relationship between number and processing time,  and another which is basically an average processing time.

2014:  100 business days of processing,  so 0.007 days per applicant

2015: 100 business days of processing,  so 0.006 days per applicant

2016: 104 business days of processing, so  0.006 days per applicant

2017: 98 business days of processing, some 0.007 days per applicant

Applicant Based:  So let's say 0.0065 days per applicant assume 14k applicants, which makes 91 days with no delays and 96 with delays which was March 11 so rounded to March 13,  but that didn't happen.

Pattern Based:  Let's assume it takes approximately 100 business days rounded to the nearest Tuesday/Friday to release winners, we get 105 days of processing after adjusting for the delays, giving a date of 3/26 which is a Monday so round to Tuesday and get 3/27, this Tuesday.  

So this indicates it is coming very soon but the error on this is probably plus or minus a week.  

 

I mean, it's a nice try based upon available data. However,  to really know, we probably need to better understand the process after the panelists review the application. The page here.says that two panelists meetings are held in January. I think it's unlikely that panels are held at the same time for every field. Probably each field has a quota of awards to give proportional to the number of applicants there.The page says all panels end in January, but I don't know what else would remain after that. Its likely that some special interdisciplinary panels etc maybe held later. Of course, the number of panelists can be changed each year, so the number of applicants versus the expected number of applicants may influence when the panel meetings are *actually* held. However, I think its not super likely that this is the case. Based on this website ( http://grfpessayinsights.missouri.edu/review), it appears that the NSF GRFP office will review the findings of the panel afterwards, and decide who actually gets the awards. Probably this is a variable amount of time every year with no rhyme or reason for how long that takes. Maybe someone knows what else happens between the panel decisions and award announcement?

Regardless of the usefulness of trying to predict the date, the page stated above does state that the panels are held on either Monday or Thursday, or Tuesday/Friday. Perhaps this is the reason for the the Tuesday/Friday dates?

 

By the way, if you really want to go with your method, probably take the total number of days since the panelists receive the applications  (or since the office receives the applications) rather than total days between due date and the announcements. Also consider assuming that only 20% of the applicants (those who are neither shoe in's nor throw outs) are actually reviewed by the NSF office, since that's the last step. Probably also assume the same or slightly fewer applicants (12.5-13k) this year as compared to last year, since some of the students last year who were grandfathered in are now gone. Also assume that 

Edited March 25, 2018 by GoldenDog

[Bayesian1701]

@GoldenDog  My theory, which may be totally wrong, about the January and March gap is the panelists don't necessarily make all the final decisions.  Perhaps they recommend 1.2x (I am guessing) people beyond the number of awards to go onto the next phase of final picking to ensure a good representation of women, minorities, and a variety of undergraduate/current institutions.  Who does the overall reviewing or if it even happens is anyone's guess.  I also think apps will be up relative to last year because I think some of the current second years didn't apply last year and waited.  Plus there was an upward trend so I think an increase might be likely.  I wish there was better data so I could do some actual statistics.  

[grilledcheese1]

24 minutes ago, Bayesian1701 said:

I also think apps will be up relative to last year because I think some of the current second years didn't apply last year and waited.  Plus there was an upward trend so I think an increase might be likely.  I wish there was better data so I could do some actual statistics.  

Yup, I think apps are going to be way up this year and the competition will be nuts.  Also there was probably an increase in apps due to fear of funding cuts to NSF.  Or maybe i'm just really pessimistic because I know I won't get it.

Edited March 26, 2018 by grilledcheese1

[GoldenDog]

26 minutes ago, Bayesian1701 said:

@GoldenDog  My theory, which may be totally wrong, about the January and March gap is the panelists don't necessarily make all the final decisions.  Perhaps they recommend 1.2x (I am guessing) people beyond the number of awards to go onto the next phase of final picking to ensure a good representation of women, minorities, and a variety of undergraduate/current institutions.  Who does the overall reviewing or if it even happens is anyone's guess.  I also think apps will be up relative to last year because I think some of the current second years didn't apply last year and waited.  Plus there was an upward trend so I think an increase might be likely.  I wish there was better data so I could do some actual statistics.  

I don't see an actual reason that more people would really apply this year, and if anything funding cuts would discourage applicants. This fellowship is not an inelastic thing where all students feel they have to have it. If I think there are less awards, I'm probably less likely to apply since it's already a crapshoot. Regardless, results will probably be this week. 

 

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

 

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by GoldenDog