Today the NSF released the reviewers' comment for the 2012 GRFP applications. I received a total of four 'excellent' ratings (all three reviewers labeled the intellectual merit 'excellent', and the third reviewer labeled broader impacts 'excellent' as well). The first reviewer thought my broader impacts were 'very good' and the second reviewer simply thought my broader impacts were 'good', and stated that he/she didn't feel I was specific enough with exactly how I planned to implement my proposed community service projects.
This is extremely frustrating, as the other two reviewers did not seem to feel that specificity was at all an issue, and all three felt the intellectual merit was 'excellent.' I'm almost positive now that the single 'good' rating was the one that kept my proposal from being funded. I imagine that if that one reviewer had classified broader impacts as 'very good,' I would have ended up with three wonderful years of funding as opposed to a second honorable mention and yet ANOTHER impending round of GRF applications.
If possible, I almost feel worse now than I did when I received the initial notification of my standing. Additionally, the only real 'constructive' criticism provided was by the second reviewer's 'good' rating for broader impacts. That reviewer stated that the mechanisms by which I would implement my proposed community outreach should be included. Space is SO limited in these proposals that I couldn't have included that information if I'd tried.
But I suppose I'll have to include it next year, if I want a shot at actually receiving an award.
