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.
2 comments:
Ugh. My friend who also got an honorable mention had the same rankings- 4 excellents, 1 very good, 1 good. I read the reviews, and the reviewer who gave the "very good" mark didn't even have any criticisms.
I just went back to look at my sheets when I got the award- 3 excellents and 3 very goods. When I got an honorable mention, it was 2 excellents and 4 very goods. The year when I didn't get anything, it was 1 excellent, 4 very goods, and 1 good. This probably doesn't help.
I really do think that, when your application is above a certain caliber in a pool of excellent applicants, that it's about getting lucky. That probably doesn't help either :-/ I'm sorry you didn't get it. My offer to help next year still stands. Don't let this keep you down!
Thanks Karina. I just might take you up on that offer! I'm concerned now that expectations for second-year graduate students differ from those for first-year students, and that I might end up rewriting my entire proposal (again!) to address that.
I suppose it wouldn't matter either way-- even if I address the one criticism from the one reviewer, my proposal will likely be read by three entirely different individuals next year, who may or may not feel similarly to this years' bunch. I really do think a lot of it is luck.
Maybe they'll see that I've applied three times already with two honorable mentions and just take pity on me? :) I can dream...
Post a Comment