NSF GRFP 2017-18

[Phancy_Physicist]

2 hours ago, GoldenDog said:

There are lots of different NSF panels. I really really really doubt that the panel your adviser attended was for GRFP, as those took place a long while ago. The budget for this year's GRFP is not changing, and there is no evidence anything else will change either. This time period is when NSF office goes through and selects final award recipients. 

To clarify, I never said she was on a GRFP Panel, my apologies for miscommunication. However the NSF's budget being approved seemed to be part of the delay. Especially since last year everyone heard back mid March. 

Edit: If they've already been approved then maybe not, but I can't imagine that everything at the NSF has necessarily been running smoothly this cycle, hence the delayed notifications.

Edited March 30, 2018 by Phancy_Physicist

[grilledcheese1]

4 hours ago, Phancy_Physicist said:

Let me just say, I literally made my account just now to reply to this and tell you how absolutely fucked it is that your advisor does that to you. Academics can spend so much time getting caught up in titles and prestige because thats how they see the world, but it is completely unfair to push that off onto a 1st or 2nd year graduate student. Focus on your research above all else and do good work, and good things will happen. 

I hate seeing Academia consume people like this. It isn't fair to you at all. Whether you get the NSF or HM or nothing, you're still a god damn PhD student/candidate, which make up less than 1% of the entire American population. You've worked hard for this, you will keep working hard, and titles and awards don't make or break you. 

Thank you, I needed to hear this.  

4 hours ago, ChemGal said:

She really said she would be disappointed if you got nothing? That's not cool. Getting an NSF depends on so many different factors, and in no way only depends on your qualifications. Of course these are important, but an award also depends on who your reviewers are and what the application pool looked like that year.  I wouldn't let her get under your skin, regardless of whether you are funded you can still do great science!  

Basically - she said it would be disappointing if I didn't get it and then went on and on about everyone else in the lab getting HM, and how based on what they've done I should get it too.  It couldn't be more clear that not getting HM will strongly affect how she thinks of me, especially compared to her other students.  I mentioned how it largely depends on reviewers and she kept countering it with "BUT so-and-so and so-and so, etc. all got HM though".  I don't think she really gets it.

4 hours ago, TK778 said:

Sometimes you can't please everyone buddy. That's just a fact of life. It may seem that your career is on the line if your PI is "disappointed", but the reality is this is kind of chance to show her that you are a resilient researcher. I am playing devils advocate here and entertaining the possibility of you not getting the NSF award. Okay so if that happens, your PI might be disappointed, but I can guarantee you that things will only get worse if you let that go to your head. You just have to get back up, realize that this field is a passion of yours and nobody has the right to stop you. If you keep working hard and show enthusiasm in your research, your PI will pick up on that. Its a trait of a great scientist. My PI is one the worlds experts in BMI and sometimes HE DOESN'T EVEN GET BIG GRANTS, but he just says "okay wasn't meant for me, time to find a new way to make my dream come true". What I am trying to say is it will all be okay!

I really hope so.  If I don't get it, i'm going to have to work double as hard to prove to my PI that i'm not an unqualified idiot.  Hopefully my hard work shows her i'm capable and she doesn't dwell on my not getting HM.

4 hours ago, t_ruth said:

Based on the OPs post below it seems advisor implied disappointment. Coming from the other side of it, I wonder if instead she was trying (albeit not successfully) to let the OP know that she is doing well--is in the right place and on par with or doing better than those who did get HMs, regardless of what the oftentimes arbitrary NSF reviewers think.

This stinks. Waiting is hard and our career as academics involves an awful lot of it. Even though I'm just following this thread as I wait for news for my own mentees (and not myself), I do understand how distracting it is!

Thanks for understanding.  She has said i'm doing well, but based on what she said it seems like not getting HM will change her mind on that.  She seems to think the process isn't arbitrary.  This isn't the first time she's lacked empathy towards me or the other students in our lab.  I'm dreading what will happen if a really stressful event like a death in the family happens during grad school.

[t_ruth]

33 minutes ago, grilledcheese1 said:

Thanks for understanding.  She has said i'm doing well, but based on what she said it seems like not getting HM will change her mind on that.  She seems to think the process isn't arbitrary.  This isn't the first time she's lacked empathy towards me or the other students in our lab.  I'm dreading what will happen if a really stressful event like a death in the family happens during grad school.

Aww I wouldn't pass judgment too soon though. Advisors are human, and her comment might have been more about the pressures she was feeling than about her actual opinion of you. Be cautious, yes, but also allow her to prove your dread wrong.

I'm sure I have ups and downs with my own students, but I really do have their best interests at heart!

[grilledcheese1]

15 minutes ago, t_ruth said:

Aww I wouldn't pass judgment too soon though. Advisors are human, and her comment might have been more about the pressures she was feeling than about her actual opinion of you. Be cautious, yes, but also allow her to prove your dread wrong.

I'm sure I have ups and downs with my own students, but I really do have their best interests at heart!

Unfortunately, not all professors have their students' best interests at heart.  It's just a matter of coping with it at this point.

[GoldenDog]

On 3/28/2018 at 8:29 PM, mars667 said:

Thanks!

I've found a few posts about that in the depths of the forums, but can't seem to track them now . I think the gist of it was that the applications are split into different groups for undergrad, 1st year, and 2nd year and they each have different standards when it comes to publications and general knowledge of the topic. I'll try to track it down tomorrow if no one beats me to it.

also it looks like that link just goes to the start of the forum, which still has good info, but there is a great comment containing some helpful info from a former panelist on page 17 (i thought linking might reduce the clutter...whoops)

I feel like I've heard about them separating undergrads and grads into separate groups, but after looking for a few minutes, I don't see that actually written anywhere... Do you remember where you may have read that?

[t_ruth]

8 minutes ago, GoldenDog said:

I feel like I've heard about them separating undergrads and grads into separate groups, but after looking for a few minutes, I don't see that actually written anywhere... Do you remember where you may have read that?

They are labeled differently for reviewers. And they are discussed at different  days and/or times on the "panels." However, each reviewer gets a mix of undergrads, first, and second years.

[GoldenDog]

5 minutes ago, t_ruth said:

They are labeled differently for reviewers. And they are discussed at different  days and/or times on the "panels." However, each reviewer gets a mix of undergrads, first, and second years.

I've heard that, so are they actually scored on a different scale then? 

Edited March 31, 2018 by GoldenDog

[t_ruth]

4 minutes ago, GoldenDog said:

I get that I've heard that, but I am just saying that I \haven't seen anything actually confirming that they are scored differently, that's all. 

It's not that they are scored differently per se, but reviewers are urged to consider each group in comparison to peers. Reviewers make their scores, certain applicants are flagged for discussion, reviewers revise their scores after discussion. Then, the program officers examine these scores and, using other factors (geographic distribution, etc.), make the decisions re: the winners.

So, a score of 25 could mean one thing for an undergrad and another thing for a second-year grad student.

[GoldenDog]

30 minutes ago, t_ruth said:

It's not that they are scored differently per se, but reviewers are urged to consider each group in comparison to peers. Reviewers make their scores, certain applicants are flagged for discussion, reviewers revise their scores after discussion. Then, the program officers examine these scores and, using other factors (geographic distribution, etc.), make the decisions re: the winners.

So, a score of 25 could mean one thing for an undergrad and another thing for a second-year grad student.

Ah, so you just mean separately. I mean, the most important step seems to be separating Q1 from Q2's, so what I'm getting at is whether the Q1 pool for the undergrad is completely separate from the Q1 pool from the grad? Assumedly with the number of awards allocated for each pool representing some proportion that reflects the ratio number of undergrad applicants to total applicants. Alternately, if the pools aren't separated, is it possible/true that being an undergrad may be a factor that allows you to move from Q2 to Q1?

More generally, I'm trying to understand if it is fact easier to win as an undergrad, or not. In the past, undergrads have won ~1/3 of the awards, but from this info alone its hard to know how helpful being an undergrad is. As a white male undergrad worried about being left as a Q2, this type of question seems pertinent (but still practically useless). 

As a faculty, do you have experience as a panelist?
 

[t_ruth]

6 minutes ago, GoldenDog said:

As a faculty, do you have experience as a panelist?

Yes, I've reviewed for GRFP. I think the undergrad pool is much more varied, so, as a *top* undergrad, one would have a substantially higher chance of winning. Things get less variable in the grad pool, so therefore it seems more based on reviewer personal opinion. There were also fewer undergrad applicants in general, at least in the panel I was on (I can't say which that was--they tell us that is one thing we can't share).

Another note re: panel though--reviewers aren't placed on panels for their main research area. They will serve on panels different enough that there won't be any conflicts, but similar enough that they know *something.*

[Bayesian1701]

The longer I wait the more and more I think about how awesome it would be to get it and how I would structure my project.  Between last  October and now I have figured out the exact methodology and a time frame to complete the subprojects.  If you're going to crush my dreams NSF please do so soon so I can get my life back together and not waste my time on a project that is not going to happen.

[Bayesian1701]

If it the release was Tuesday and maintenance is needed for a release, wouldn’t a notice likely be up right now? 

[nanograd]

51 minutes ago, Bayesian1701 said:

If it the release was Tuesday and maintenance is needed for a release, wouldn’t a notice likely be up right now? 

For the last tuesday release they posted maintenance on monday

[carlsaganism]

so if no maintenance by the end of Monday, then release will be more likely next week? (April 10th)

[EliosHarg]

Well, if they are keeping with the traditional Tuesday or Friday, then it could be Friday, April 6th. I believe it will likely be sometime this week as most admission acceptance deadlines are the 15th. Going back to 2009, the absolute latest it has been released has been on a Friday, April 10th, 2009. So, April 10th is a possibility, but I think they will get it out before then.

Edited April 1, 2018 by EliosHarg

[mmckenn5]

I'm on fire

[jmillar]

Procrastinating pretty hard here today, so I've compiled a list of release dates since 2001:

• 2007: Friday, March 17
• 2016: Tuesday, March 29
• 2015: Tuesday, March 31
• 2014: Tuesday, April 1
• 2013: Friday, March 29
• 2012: Friday, March 20
• 2011: Tuesday, April 5
• 2010: Tuesday, April 6
• 2009: Friday, April 10
• 2008: Tuesday, April 1
• 2007: Friday, March 23
• 2006: Thursday, March 30
• 2005: Saturday, April 9
• 2004: Thursday, March 18
• 2003: Friday, April 4
• 2002: Friday, March 15
• 2001: Tuesday, March 20

References: GradCafe, CC 2006, CC 2007, CC 2008, CC Past List

[grilledcheese1]

Will this be the latest release date in the past 17 years, as the application due date used to be later?

[carlsaganism]

16 minutes ago, grilledcheese1 said:

Will this be the latest release date in the past 17 years, as the application due date used to be later?

Possibly, but there hasn't been a combination of hurricanes and government shutdown in the past

[GoldenDog]

34 minutes ago, jmillar said:

Procrastinating pretty hard here today, so I've compiled a list of release dates since 2001:

• 2007: Friday, March 17
• 2016: Tuesday, March 29
• 2015: Tuesday, March 31
• 2014: Tuesday, April 1
• 2013: Friday, March 29
• 2012: Friday, March 20
• 2011: Tuesday, April 5
• 2010: Tuesday, April 6
• 2009: Friday, April 10
• 2008: Tuesday, April 1
• 2007: Friday, March 23
• 2006: Thursday, March 30
• 2005: Saturday, April 9
• 2004: Thursday, March 18
• 2003: Friday, April 4
• 2002: Friday, March 15
• 2001: Tuesday, March 20

References: GradCafe, CC 2006, CC 2007, CC 2008, CC Past List

Lol at those poor confused students in 2005.

[grilledcheese1]

23 minutes ago, GoldenDog said:

Lol at those poor confused students in 2005.

I wonder if that was really a Saturday?

Edited April 1, 2018 by grilledcheese1

[ChemGal]

 

13 minutes ago, grilledcheese1 said:

I wonder if that was really a Saturday?

Maybe that was before the T/F pattern was established. If the above was correct, 2006 and 2004 had a Thursday release. 

Edited April 1, 2018 by ChemGal

[GoldenDog]

13 minutes ago, grilledcheese1 said:

I wonder if that was really a Saturday?

Me too but its not worth the time to check.

[jmillar]

13 minutes ago, grilledcheese1 said:

I wonder if that was really a Saturday?

I'm having trouble finding a specific thread for 2005. I'm going off the list made 10 years ago on CC. It's possible it came out on a Friday and people first posted about it on a Saturday. 2006 came out on a Thursday, though.

[ChemGal]

Can I ask you all for some advice? I have a big exam on Tuesday morning (~30% of my final grade). If results come out on Tuesday, would you wait to open the results until after or do you think the anticipation would distract you during the exam?