NSF GRFP 2017-18

[nanograd]

6 minutes ago, hurryskurry said:

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. 

Some trades don't need to be a source of long term growth or create new technologies. Some trades are simply an art and don't need to be researched or improved; they just need to be passed on.

[nanograd]

11 minutes ago, Bayesian1701 said:

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.

In 2016 when it was a Tuesday release, there was a gradcafe post at 9:30 AM the Monday before: 

Edited March 26, 2018 by nanograd

[amwhite]

22 minutes ago, Bayesian1701 said:

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.

In 2017 the notice was posted on 2 days in advance by 230pm. 

 

[Marinebio444]

1 hour ago, nanograd said:

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.) 

I see where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree. I don't think the number of BA's/BS's being given out is the problem, the problem exists within America's university system itself. Having a generally better-educated populace is a good thing. Forcing kids to go into crippling debt in order to achieve that is where the issue lies. Until the cost of education goes down, we're stuck in this circular logic where kids go to college to get a degree to pay off the debt obtained for getting their degree. We shouldn't be discouraging people from getting BA's and BS's,  especially if we're discouraging people from following their passions. We should be making it easier for them to pursue these passions without the fear of falling into such severe debt that they never end up attaining their goal.

[Elephas]

44 minutes ago, nanograd said:

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.

So are you saying limit the access to higher education? The reason for increased bachelors degrees has been an increase in access for students whose families previously could not afford to go to school or didn't know that was an option. To me this seems like it would have the largest effect on members of underrepresented communities many of whom are still the first in their families to ever pursue a college education. 

[mocefacdargeht]

3 hours 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. 

A nice reminder that people in STEM are not immune to irrational thought. If maintenance of debt costs less than return on investment, the rational thing to do is increase debt to increase investment. This "debt is always bad" mantra is a weird psychological trait was probably useful at some point in the evolution of our species, but should be called out as moralizing as it's not clear what you mean by "good thing".

Also, the US uses a FIAT currency, and is the reserve currency of the world. National debt has absolutely nothing to do with "living within our means", of which I assume you are confusing it with household debt. The national debt can, and should, grow forever assuming you are in favor of things like retirement accounts and modest inflation.

I know I'm making it worse but I hope all these economic and political posts (including mine) get deleted so we can get back to complex schemes for predicting the award announcement date.

Edited March 26, 2018 by mocefacdargeht
clarify

[mocefacdargeht]

On topic: I am predicting Friday this week. Five of the last six years have been announced between the 29th and the 1st, and while the outlier early announcement last year corresponds to the same solicitation as this year, I think we're safely out of the "early" period and can expect to go back to the pattern of the previous 5 years. Hopefully there is a maintenance announcement in the next few hours to prove me wrong!

[nanograd]

6 minutes ago, Elephas said:

So are you saying limit the access to higher education? The reason for increased bachelors degrees has been an increase in access for students whose families previously could not afford to go to school or didn't know that was an option. To me this seems like it would have the largest effect on members of underrepresented communities many of whom are still the first in their families to ever pursue a college education. 

I am absolutely not saying to limit access to higher education. High school students, however, should be better supplied with the information needed to decide if college is the best option for them, as well as offering great technical alternatives as a mainstay (see Education in Germany).

I myself am a first generation college graduate (and first PhD student in my family), I only learned about college from high school, friends, media, etc, and I was fully supported by financial aid throughout my undergrad. 

Access to college as well as technical schools for students from all backgrounds is what I am suggesting. 

[Gabi]

15 minutes ago, nanograd said:

I am absolutely not saying to limit access to higher education. High school students, however, should be better supplied with the information needed to decide if college is the best option for them, as well as offering great technical alternatives as a mainstay (see Education in Germany).

I myself am a first generation college graduate (and first PhD student in my family), I only learned about college from high school, friends, media, etc, and I was fully supported by financial aid throughout my undergrad. 

Access to college as well as technical schools for students from all backgrounds is what I am suggesting. 

I spent some time doing research in Germany and met a few students who had not scored "high enough" to be considered fit to pursue college and graduate school. As a result they had to enter trade schools after middle school (one was matched as an assistant) and fight to be eligible for scientific education which is what the student eventually did. The student mentioned a lot of people from poor backgrounds were much more likely to be shuffled to trade schools that did not provide large opportunities to advance.

I'm not saying trade schools are not a good idea at all, but I think pointing to Germany as a good example should not ignore the fact that the consequences of that may lead to socioeconomic problems. Additionally, yes our current method of education will not fix socioeconomic problems and also leads to people being in very high debt. I thus agree that the methods of funding regarding education in higher ed in the US are just as much of a problem, and that having trade schools be an option discussed in education is important. I just wanted to point out that the potential consequences of the German paradigm. 

[grilledcheese1]

3 hours ago, cemeterydr1ve said:

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.  

Same here.  I don't have to worry about funding and have other fellowships.  The reason i'm so desperate for even HM is because every single person in my lab who was eligible for the GRFP got Honorable Mention, including my advisor.  That means if I get nothing, i'm going to break the HM record and it's going to make me look horrible and objectively less intelligent than my labmates.  I'm also a Hispanic woman so if it really is easier for minorities to get it, it's going to look even worse if I get nothing.

[t_ruth]

1 hour ago, grilledcheese1 said:

Same here.  I don't have to worry about funding and have other fellowships.  The reason i'm so desperate for even HM is because every single person in my lab who was eligible for the GRFP got Honorable Mention, including my advisor.  That means if I get nothing, i'm going to break the HM record and it's going to make me look horrible and objectively less intelligent than my labmates.  I'm also a Hispanic woman so if it really is easier for minorities to get it, it's going to look even worse if I get nothing.

So much of it is random chance re: who you get for your reviewers and who else they review, so I wouldn't get too wrapped up in it. Plus, the advisor and their letter/guidance plays a large role, so it isn't all on you anyway

btw, Hi Ed Psych person! Regardless of the GRFP situation, you should think about applying for the Ford next year if you are still early enough in your program...

[ChemGal]

It looks like it's going to be Friday  

[northernchild]

... if we're lucky

[mmckenn5]

And I thought I was being conservative 3 weeks ago when I predicted March 27th............... 

[ChemGal]

I'm holding on to the hope that they won't actually release in April. Because it's all I have left. 

[Bayesian1701]

So it's probably going be Friday, but who else will irrationally check their email first thing tomorrow?

[Behavecol]

8 minutes ago, Bayesian1701 said:

So it's probably going be Friday, but who else will irrationally check their email first thing tomorrow?

Me!!! Haha!

[grilledcheese1]

2 hours ago, t_ruth said:

So much of it is random chance re: who you get for your reviewers and who else they review, so I wouldn't get too wrapped up in it. Plus, the advisor and their letter/guidance plays a large role, so it isn't all on you anyway

btw, Hi Ed Psych person! Regardless of the GRFP situation, you should think about applying for the Ford next year if you are still early enough in your program...

I know it's largely a shot in the dark, but I don't think that will prevent my advisor from being disappointed in me if (aka when) I don't get it.  

 

Also, Ford isn't really up my alley.  I do a lot of outreach, but diversity isn't at all a research interest of mine.  I'm also not the type of Hispanic they want applications for - they are looking for Mexicans/Puerto Ricans, but I am neither of those.

Edited March 26, 2018 by grilledcheese1

[vall718]

This has probably been discussed already, but how often has there been a correlation between a maintenance advisory and the results being posted the next morning? 

At least the ones we know of.

Edited March 26, 2018 by vall718

[psychpride9]

34 minutes ago, vall718 said:

This has probably been discussed already, but how often has there been a correlation between a maintenance advisory and the results being posted the next morning? 

At least the ones we know of.

At least for the past six-seven years there's always been the maintenance message beforehand. 

[masbrkom]

What if the new system update made it to where shutdown maintenance isn't required?

[northernchild]

I think if that were the case the 2017 awards list should be back up.

[jmillar]

6 minutes ago, masbrkom said:

What if the new system update made it to where shutdown maintenance isn't required?

Asking the important questions. That's why I love this thread.

[masbrkom]

I don't think that there was maintenance shutdown in order to take the list down, so maybe it doesn't need one to be uploaded. Or least I didn't notice a correlation of shutdown and list take-down.

[mparrish429]

44 minutes ago, masbrkom said:

I don't think that there was maintenance shutdown in order to take the list down, so maybe it doesn't need one to be uploaded. Or least I didn't notice a correlation of shutdown and list take-down.

I believe there actually was, I think I recall the list being taken down during one of the Saturday night maintenances about two weeks ago.