The NSF GRFP: Third time's a charm?

This fall, I applied for the NSF GRFP a third time. Here's how the cards have fallen out in years past:

2010: Applied. Received an Honorable Mention.
2011: Applied. Application was not reviewed.
2012: Applied. Fingers crossed!

I'll have to wait until April to find the results of this latest attempt. I checked and double-checked the application requirements, and since I had internet access this year, I made sure that all of my references submitted their recommendation letters on time. So hopefully I won't receive a depressing email in January this year informing me that my application won't be reviewed.

I feel really good about my application this year. I felt good about last year's application, but that doesn't even compare to this season. Last year I wrote my application over the course of a few days. It went through two or three edits, and I received feedback from my former thesis adviser, Walt, as well as one potential graduate adviser. I felt it was pretty strong.

This year, however, I had all of the glorious resources provided by a graduate program. This included: my graduate adviser, our department's grant coordinator, a class constructed around peer review of grant proposals, and a slew of graduate students. My adviser read through last year's proposal early on and decided I should take a different direction. I was initially a little disappointed, because I had to start from scratch: a different study system, different research questions, different methods.

However, my new proposal targets a question I might actually address in the course of my dissertation. The work I told the NSF I'll be attempting is something I might actually attempt, so although I had to spend more time than I'd anticipated rewriting my proposal, it forced me to think about a study system in which I might actually work.

My proposal went through TONS of drafts. I think in the end I had four different versions, each written from a different angle, and several edits of each of those drafts. I was able to choose the strongest and submit that. I know that a lot of the NSF GRF, like many application processes, has to do with luck-- the random way in which proposals end up in the hands of reviewers; the reviewers' background experiences, familiarity with study systems and terminology; their particular moods when they do the actual reviewing. But I feel confident that I did the best possible work I could on the proposal, and I know it is strong, and should be a contender.

I should have one additional year of eligibility for the NSF GRF. If I don't receive the grant again this year, I'll be able to give it one more shot next fall. But here's to hoping that the third time's a charm!