I received notification this morning that I've been awarded the coveted National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship! This is both a surprise and a tremendous relief.
I had a feeling that announcements would be released late last night or early this morning, but when my email inbox was empty this morning, I thought that we might not hear the outcomes until next Friday. A little later in the morning, our department received an email from one of the professors congratulating his student on having received an award. I was SUPER confused. I checked the NSF GRFP website and saw that decisions had already been made and announced. Huh?
Turns out, the email had gone INTO MY SPAM FOLDER. At that point I was bummed. The heading for the email just said, "NSF GRF Program Notification," and nothing was showing in the body of the email. Since we'd already heard from a professor with a successful student, I assumed I'd received another honorable mention, or nothing at all, so when I opened the email and the first line said "Congratulations!" I was surprised. I have to admit that I sat there a second thinking, "This can't be right..."
BUT IT WAS! :D :D :D
I'd been on campus all morning working in our research lab, and I turned to my friend (working next to me) and said, "What!? I got one????"
Then I was shaking a lot and called my mom (who cried) and my undergraduate adviser (who didn't answer, but emailed me excitedly later) and emailed my advisor (who was pretty happy).
And then my productivity was shot to hell and I've been basically doing nothing since. :)
After FOUR application attempts, I am very, very happy to be receiving an award. Each year brought me a little closer to the actual award, but, as this was my last year of eligibility to apply for a GRF, I was concerned that I might go a fourth round without getting the fellowship. In particular, I felt my intellectual merit was slightly less strong than in years past, although I knew my broader impacts were stronger and more concrete.
I received some nice reviews--five "excellent" ratings and one "very good." The "very good" rating was on broader impacts from a reviewer who was concerned that I didn't have explicit plans for working with undergraduates, despite a detailed outline of an outreach program geared towards citizen science and underrepresented high school student groups. Whatever.
I was beginning to be VERY concerned with the outcome of the GRF this year, since my field research occurs during the autumn and my department-provided funding runs only through the end of this semester. I had no idea how I was going to be able to support myself and complete my fieldwork. Now I have solid funding for the next three years. Not only do I not have to worry about TA'ing anymore, but I have extra incentive to finish my degree within 5 years!
:D
Showing posts with label NSF GRFP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NSF GRFP. Show all posts
Friday, March 29, 2013
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
The NSF GRFP.... Round 4
No, you haven't misread the title of this post. "Round 4" is accurate. It's not referring to the number of drafts I've gone through, or the number of topic changes, either. It's referring to the actual number of times I've now applied for the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship.
Let's recap, shall we?
2010: Applied, and received an honorable mention
2011: Applied, and my application was not reviewed, as one of my references failed to submit a recommendation letter on time. I was working in the field the weeks preceding and following the due date, with no access to the Internet or phone service. Interestingly, this was the year that recommendation letters were due the same day as proposals-- I wonder how many other letter-writers were "thrown" by this change. This was before the NSF included the option to list fourth and fifth "backup" references.
2012: Applied, and received an honorable mention
2013: Applied.
It's a good thing that the NSF doesn't place a limit on number of attempts made by a single applicant. I'm lucky enough that, at the beginning of my second year in graduate school, I'm still eligible for the award. But the thought that this is my last remaining year to apply for the GRF weighed heavily on me as I wrote this year's proposal.
In years past, I have felt confident about my proposals, but less so about my personal statements and research background essays. Reviews from the two occasions on which my proposals were read by the NSF were not terribly helpful, but at least one reviewer in each case suggested strengthening and/or elaborating on proposed outreach activities.
This year, I found that the proposal itself was the most difficult to write. I initially found this strange, as I have an actual dissertation project now, and actual data from an actual field season. I've just finished my first season in the field (which, apart from a couple small snafus, was a resounding success). You'd think that, with real data in hand and at least a broad conceptualization of the way the work will continue, it would be easier to write a stellar proposal. But real data are messy, pilot data aren't necessarily indicative of larger trends (particularly with small sample sizes), and it turns out that trying to condense an actual dissertation project into two pages is far more difficult than trying to condense a potential dissertation topic into a short length.
I ran through eight different approaches, with multiple drafts of three or four of those. The proposal I finally chose to submit was not, in my opinion, the strongest it could have been. I'm still not sure that the flow among background information, hypotheses, and methods is appropriate, and I worry that the broader scientific impacts (the most interesting aspects of the study) will be lost in the minutiae I was forced to include toward intellectual merit. :\
There's no use worrying about it now, though. It's out of my hands, and into the reviewers' (hopefully), and it remains to be seen how they will judge the work.
The one thing I do feel good about? Outreach and broader (societal) impacts. This past year I've begun an outreach/science education project that already has a fairly large following, and wrote a manuscript on the work that was recently accepted to a well-respected journal. My personal statement dealt almost entirely with this process, as well as my plans to continue and improve upon the work. Between that, an additional field season under my belt (one geared toward my dissertation work), and a couple additional presentations, my personal statement and research background essays felt pretty strong. Go figure.
All this has just further illustrated for me the idiosyncratic nature of the GRFP, which I know will only be enhanced by the random draw of reviewers who ultimately read and judge my proposal. If they've had a bad day or have some internal bias against my topic, study system, writing style-- anything-- they may not see fit to rank it highly. If they happen to be specialists in my particular field, they may see the inherent flaws in my proposal, and, again, not see fit to rank it highly. If they are not specialists within my field, and can see the broader merit in the ideas and proposed application and data analysis, perhaps I have a shot at it.
Only time will tell, and I'll find out, again, in late March or April. The past three attempts have taught me not to get my hopes up. I could really use a GRF (as if anyone couldn't!), particularly because my fieldwork needs to take place in autumn, a prime time for teaching assistantships, and not something that will be easy to work around if I don't receive some form of external support.
Will this be my year, finally? Will my fourth go-round prove that I really am a worthy candidate for a GRF? Or will I again get handed an honorable mention (or worse, nothing), and have to walk away knowing that, even after FOUR attempts, I still couldn't pass muster?
Let's recap, shall we?
2010: Applied, and received an honorable mention
2011: Applied, and my application was not reviewed, as one of my references failed to submit a recommendation letter on time. I was working in the field the weeks preceding and following the due date, with no access to the Internet or phone service. Interestingly, this was the year that recommendation letters were due the same day as proposals-- I wonder how many other letter-writers were "thrown" by this change. This was before the NSF included the option to list fourth and fifth "backup" references.
2012: Applied, and received an honorable mention
2013: Applied.
It's a good thing that the NSF doesn't place a limit on number of attempts made by a single applicant. I'm lucky enough that, at the beginning of my second year in graduate school, I'm still eligible for the award. But the thought that this is my last remaining year to apply for the GRF weighed heavily on me as I wrote this year's proposal.
In years past, I have felt confident about my proposals, but less so about my personal statements and research background essays. Reviews from the two occasions on which my proposals were read by the NSF were not terribly helpful, but at least one reviewer in each case suggested strengthening and/or elaborating on proposed outreach activities.
This year, I found that the proposal itself was the most difficult to write. I initially found this strange, as I have an actual dissertation project now, and actual data from an actual field season. I've just finished my first season in the field (which, apart from a couple small snafus, was a resounding success). You'd think that, with real data in hand and at least a broad conceptualization of the way the work will continue, it would be easier to write a stellar proposal. But real data are messy, pilot data aren't necessarily indicative of larger trends (particularly with small sample sizes), and it turns out that trying to condense an actual dissertation project into two pages is far more difficult than trying to condense a potential dissertation topic into a short length.
I ran through eight different approaches, with multiple drafts of three or four of those. The proposal I finally chose to submit was not, in my opinion, the strongest it could have been. I'm still not sure that the flow among background information, hypotheses, and methods is appropriate, and I worry that the broader scientific impacts (the most interesting aspects of the study) will be lost in the minutiae I was forced to include toward intellectual merit. :\
There's no use worrying about it now, though. It's out of my hands, and into the reviewers' (hopefully), and it remains to be seen how they will judge the work.
The one thing I do feel good about? Outreach and broader (societal) impacts. This past year I've begun an outreach/science education project that already has a fairly large following, and wrote a manuscript on the work that was recently accepted to a well-respected journal. My personal statement dealt almost entirely with this process, as well as my plans to continue and improve upon the work. Between that, an additional field season under my belt (one geared toward my dissertation work), and a couple additional presentations, my personal statement and research background essays felt pretty strong. Go figure.
All this has just further illustrated for me the idiosyncratic nature of the GRFP, which I know will only be enhanced by the random draw of reviewers who ultimately read and judge my proposal. If they've had a bad day or have some internal bias against my topic, study system, writing style-- anything-- they may not see fit to rank it highly. If they happen to be specialists in my particular field, they may see the inherent flaws in my proposal, and, again, not see fit to rank it highly. If they are not specialists within my field, and can see the broader merit in the ideas and proposed application and data analysis, perhaps I have a shot at it.
Only time will tell, and I'll find out, again, in late March or April. The past three attempts have taught me not to get my hopes up. I could really use a GRF (as if anyone couldn't!), particularly because my fieldwork needs to take place in autumn, a prime time for teaching assistantships, and not something that will be easy to work around if I don't receive some form of external support.
Will this be my year, finally? Will my fourth go-round prove that I really am a worthy candidate for a GRF? Or will I again get handed an honorable mention (or worse, nothing), and have to walk away knowing that, even after FOUR attempts, I still couldn't pass muster?
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Reviews
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.
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.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Yet again....
Early this morning, the National Science Foundation notified applicants of the results of their Graduate Research Fellowship bid. I awoke this morning to an email in my inbox notifying me that, regrettably, the NSF will not be able to offer me an award this year, that I have been awarded (yet another) Honorable Mention (which is supposedly a "significant achievement".... right), and that reviewer's comments will be available in three business days. I will be interested to see what the reviewers had to say, and if there is anything that's actually constructive that I'll be able to use to improve my application for next year.
Yep, that's right. Next year. Since this is my first year of graduate school and I will have not yet completed a full twelve months of classes before the next GRF application season, I will have one last year to try... yet again. Next year will mark my FOURTH attempt.
I am so sick of applying for this thing. I really felt strongly about this year's application, and I thought I had a good shot. I suppose all I can do now is wait for the reviewer's comments to be released, hope there is something constructive I can apply to my research proposal, and try again next November.
Of course, chances are I'll end up rewriting the entire application with a different focus. Especially if I get some of these research ideas going. I have a feeling what I really need is a publication or two on my record, stronger letters of recommendation from current (as opposed to mostly past) advisers, and DATA from a pilot study to show that I'm really on to something and I'm worth the NSF's support.
Yep, that's right. Next year. Since this is my first year of graduate school and I will have not yet completed a full twelve months of classes before the next GRF application season, I will have one last year to try... yet again. Next year will mark my FOURTH attempt.
I am so sick of applying for this thing. I really felt strongly about this year's application, and I thought I had a good shot. I suppose all I can do now is wait for the reviewer's comments to be released, hope there is something constructive I can apply to my research proposal, and try again next November.
Of course, chances are I'll end up rewriting the entire application with a different focus. Especially if I get some of these research ideas going. I have a feeling what I really need is a publication or two on my record, stronger letters of recommendation from current (as opposed to mostly past) advisers, and DATA from a pilot study to show that I'm really on to something and I'm worth the NSF's support.
Friday, December 16, 2011
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!
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!
Saturday, October 15, 2011
And on into autumn...
I'm temped to start off by apologizing for not having updated in so long, but to be perfectly honest, this is the first chance I've had since my last post to sit down and spend some time with the blog. They're not kidding when they say grad school is busy. It is!
So far, things are going pretty well. We're midway through the semester now, and although a small part of me feels I should have a good idea about whether or not I like what I'm doing, the larger part says I should reserve judgement for another year or so. That doesn't mean I haven't already formulated some opinions, however.
I like my cohort a lot. Just about everyone is getting along well. They're a group of friendly, knowledgeable people with diverse backgrounds and perspectives, and that makes for a good mix. We're starting to socialize more now and I'm beginning to make friends. We're gradually spending time together outside of school, which has been great. It's so nice to have a social outlet of people my own age group again. And, of course, we share similar interests, which makes conversation easier.
I'm gradually getting used to living here. Generally, it's a pretty nice place. There is a lot going on (a lot of weekend activities, for example), good hiking/natural areas nearby, and the campus is nice. There is also a pretty good alternative transportation infrastructure, so I've been able to get around on my bike pretty easily. This has been great. In MHT, it's just about impossible to bike or bus anywhere. Out here, I ride my bike back and forth to campus every day, and often ride my bike to run errands or visit people's houses. I've only filled up my car with gas once since I've been here, which is fantastic, because gas is outrageously expensive out here.
Gas isn't the only thing that's pricey-- housing costs, utilities, food, clothing, you name it. I have yet to see an item for purchase that is lower (or even comparable, in some cases) in cost to the same item back home. It's been a real shock, and is probably the one thing I'm really having trouble getting used to. Things I would have bought without thinking about it MHT, I now have to give careful consideration, especially with my limited grad student budget. I've gone from buying a nice assortment of mostly healthy foods to a limited selection of cheap foods. Probably not ideal for my physical well-being, but there just isn't any way for me to afford the stuff I'd like to be eating. And eating out, movies, new clothes, and other incidental expenditures? Forget about it. I'm going to be stretching my budget as is every month just paying the bills.
Weather has been another interesting consideration. Back home, the weather is starting to dip toward winter, with chilly mornings and evenings and some light freezing overnight. Here, the weather has stayed pretty consistent. It's not really cold, ever. But it rains. A lot. All day long. And that has been a little strange. I'm starting to wonder how much rain we'll get here during the winter.
Classes haven't been too bad. There is a tremendous amount of required reading for the core courses I'm taking for the program, and in some ways that's been frustrating because it takes a lot of time away from me reading the stuff I'm actually interested in (e.g. reading that is relevant to my research interests, and that may help me start working on research projects for this summer and beyond). Only a couple of classes I'm taking right now feel applicable to my research, and I almost feel as if school is starting to get in the way of my education. I need to strike a balance between participating in the core courses and having enough time in my schedule to attack my own work-- research ideas, reading, and, of course grant proposals.
It's almost NSF GRFP season again. And yes, I'm going to apply, again. I'm going to use the same proposal that I did last year. This time, however, my adviser will serve as my third academic reference, to replace the reference I still haven't been able to forgive. I've done some minor editing to my proposal, but even a year later with a fresher perspective I continue to feel good about it. I do wish I'd had the opportunity to get feedback from the NSF reviewers, but obviously that didn't happen, so I'm going to have to hope for the best. I'm going to ask Paul (my shiny new graduate adviser) to take a look at it, and hope he might offer some feedback. I might even ask one of my new labmates (another group of people that I really like) to read it over.
Apart from all that, nothing much else has been going on, which I suppose is a good thing considering how busy I've been. I'm working on finding a place to ride out here, as a hobby to get me away from academia every week. I'm looking into a once-weekly job at a consignment barn working sale horses, but I'm not sure yet if it's going to work out. I haven't really been homesick, although I do miss MHT and my friends and family, and Jet (also, snow, affordable food, the ability to participate things that cost money, having expendable income, and good delivery pizza, which I haven't been able to find here yet). It won't be too much longer before Thanksgiving, though, when I'll be making my first trip back home. Time flies!
(*Wow! I just noticed, this is my 100th post! I feel like I should have some sort of celebration...*)
So far, things are going pretty well. We're midway through the semester now, and although a small part of me feels I should have a good idea about whether or not I like what I'm doing, the larger part says I should reserve judgement for another year or so. That doesn't mean I haven't already formulated some opinions, however.
I like my cohort a lot. Just about everyone is getting along well. They're a group of friendly, knowledgeable people with diverse backgrounds and perspectives, and that makes for a good mix. We're starting to socialize more now and I'm beginning to make friends. We're gradually spending time together outside of school, which has been great. It's so nice to have a social outlet of people my own age group again. And, of course, we share similar interests, which makes conversation easier.
I'm gradually getting used to living here. Generally, it's a pretty nice place. There is a lot going on (a lot of weekend activities, for example), good hiking/natural areas nearby, and the campus is nice. There is also a pretty good alternative transportation infrastructure, so I've been able to get around on my bike pretty easily. This has been great. In MHT, it's just about impossible to bike or bus anywhere. Out here, I ride my bike back and forth to campus every day, and often ride my bike to run errands or visit people's houses. I've only filled up my car with gas once since I've been here, which is fantastic, because gas is outrageously expensive out here.
Gas isn't the only thing that's pricey-- housing costs, utilities, food, clothing, you name it. I have yet to see an item for purchase that is lower (or even comparable, in some cases) in cost to the same item back home. It's been a real shock, and is probably the one thing I'm really having trouble getting used to. Things I would have bought without thinking about it MHT, I now have to give careful consideration, especially with my limited grad student budget. I've gone from buying a nice assortment of mostly healthy foods to a limited selection of cheap foods. Probably not ideal for my physical well-being, but there just isn't any way for me to afford the stuff I'd like to be eating. And eating out, movies, new clothes, and other incidental expenditures? Forget about it. I'm going to be stretching my budget as is every month just paying the bills.
Weather has been another interesting consideration. Back home, the weather is starting to dip toward winter, with chilly mornings and evenings and some light freezing overnight. Here, the weather has stayed pretty consistent. It's not really cold, ever. But it rains. A lot. All day long. And that has been a little strange. I'm starting to wonder how much rain we'll get here during the winter.
Classes haven't been too bad. There is a tremendous amount of required reading for the core courses I'm taking for the program, and in some ways that's been frustrating because it takes a lot of time away from me reading the stuff I'm actually interested in (e.g. reading that is relevant to my research interests, and that may help me start working on research projects for this summer and beyond). Only a couple of classes I'm taking right now feel applicable to my research, and I almost feel as if school is starting to get in the way of my education. I need to strike a balance between participating in the core courses and having enough time in my schedule to attack my own work-- research ideas, reading, and, of course grant proposals.
It's almost NSF GRFP season again. And yes, I'm going to apply, again. I'm going to use the same proposal that I did last year. This time, however, my adviser will serve as my third academic reference, to replace the reference I still haven't been able to forgive. I've done some minor editing to my proposal, but even a year later with a fresher perspective I continue to feel good about it. I do wish I'd had the opportunity to get feedback from the NSF reviewers, but obviously that didn't happen, so I'm going to have to hope for the best. I'm going to ask Paul (my shiny new graduate adviser) to take a look at it, and hope he might offer some feedback. I might even ask one of my new labmates (another group of people that I really like) to read it over.
Apart from all that, nothing much else has been going on, which I suppose is a good thing considering how busy I've been. I'm working on finding a place to ride out here, as a hobby to get me away from academia every week. I'm looking into a once-weekly job at a consignment barn working sale horses, but I'm not sure yet if it's going to work out. I haven't really been homesick, although I do miss MHT and my friends and family, and Jet (also, snow, affordable food, the ability to participate things that cost money, having expendable income, and good delivery pizza, which I haven't been able to find here yet). It won't be too much longer before Thanksgiving, though, when I'll be making my first trip back home. Time flies!
(*Wow! I just noticed, this is my 100th post! I feel like I should have some sort of celebration...*)
Thursday, January 13, 2011
A Matter of Trust
Late last week, I received a terrible email. I read the title and my heart sunk. I literally felt as if I'd swallowed it. I didn't know what to do or what to think. So I stood there, staring at it, reading it again and again, trying to find some loophole or punchline somewhere, or waiting for someone to hop out from behind the door and shout "Gotcha! Just kidding!"
But no one did.
The email was from the National Science Foundation. It said, in short, that one of my references had failed to submit a recommendation letter on my behalf. That as a result, my application was considered incomplete, and will not be considered for the Graduate Research Fellowship.
I trust (trusted?) my references. All three are professors at my undergraduate institution. I had extensive interaction with all three-- coursework, advising, fieldwork, travel. I feel that I know all three pretty well, and that, in turn, they know me.
Before I left for my winter fieldwork at the beginning of November, I contacted all three. I made sure they were still willing to serve as references on my behalf. I sent them each a list of the schools and fellowships to which I was applying, and the deadlines for each. I made sure that, after I'd completed my applications, they'd received links and instructions for submitting each letter to each location. I stressed to each of them that I would be in the field and away from internet access for six weeks, a time period encompassing every single application deadline, and that I would be unable to check to make sure they'd submitted their recommendation letters on time.
That, to me, was perhaps most important. They've served as references for me in the past, and last year had no trouble getting their letters in on time. Had I been here, at home, during November and December, I likely would have checked every few days to see if they'd submitted letters or not, and I certainly would have checked every day leading up to submission deadlines. Especially for the NSF GRFP.
I worked really hard on my NSF application this year. I completely re-wrote my research proposal and personal statement, and made significant changes to my research background essay. I asked for feedback and advice from two of my undergraduate advisers and two potential graduate advisers. I went through three drafts-- something I rarely do. I felt really, really good about that application. And, considering I received an honorable mention last year and was able to incorporate the advice I received from last years' reviewers, I felt I had a good shot at winning one of those illusive fellowships this time round.
All of that gone to waste, because someone I was counting on failed to come through. That, perhaps, is the most frustrating, the most disappointing, part of it all-- that the NSF won't consider my application because of something someone else was supposed to have done. Through no fault of my own.
After I received the email I accessed FastLane to see which of my three references had failed to submit a letter. It hadn't even occurred to me to check FastLane when I got back from my fieldwork stint at the end of December. For one thing, I knew it was too late at that point to do anything about it, and, for another, I'd received emails from several schools about having received recommendation letters, which led me to believe that all three of my references had submitted their letters on time.
I called my former thesis adviser, Walt, and asked for his advice. I wasn't sure how to approach the situation, if there was anything, anything at all, that I could do. And I didn't want to interact with the person who forgot the letter, because I wouldn't even know what to say.
He was shocked to hear that said person hadn't submitted his letter. It is extremely uncharacteristic of him, and, of my three references, he's typically the most reliable. Perhaps something had gone wrong, then? Perhaps the issue was on NSF's end, and not on mine? Walt told me he'd look into and get back to me. Later that day, he sent me a brief email, that said only, "We put a call into NSF. Hang tight."
I really wish he'd been more detailed. Does this mean that the letter in question had been submitted, but had gotten lost somewhere in cyberspace? Does this mean that, maybe, just maybe, it was something the NSF did, and not my reference, that resulted in an incomplete application? Is there any teensy tiny itty bitty measly little squitty chance that the NSF will realize some sort of mistake and reconsider my application? Or is it really just that my reference forgot, didn't submit on time, and I'll be left to deal with the implications, and the idea that all the work I put into my application this year will be for nothing, and that my application won't even be reviewed?
I hope I hear back from them soon. I just want to know, one way or the other. But right now, it really does look as if I won't even have a shot at the NSF GRF this year. And there's nothing I can do, or could have done, about it.
What a great way to start off in 2011, eh?
EDIT: It's official. NSF returned my reference's inquiries. They will not consider my application this year. *heavy sigh*
But no one did.
The email was from the National Science Foundation. It said, in short, that one of my references had failed to submit a recommendation letter on my behalf. That as a result, my application was considered incomplete, and will not be considered for the Graduate Research Fellowship.
I trust (trusted?) my references. All three are professors at my undergraduate institution. I had extensive interaction with all three-- coursework, advising, fieldwork, travel. I feel that I know all three pretty well, and that, in turn, they know me.
Before I left for my winter fieldwork at the beginning of November, I contacted all three. I made sure they were still willing to serve as references on my behalf. I sent them each a list of the schools and fellowships to which I was applying, and the deadlines for each. I made sure that, after I'd completed my applications, they'd received links and instructions for submitting each letter to each location. I stressed to each of them that I would be in the field and away from internet access for six weeks, a time period encompassing every single application deadline, and that I would be unable to check to make sure they'd submitted their recommendation letters on time.
That, to me, was perhaps most important. They've served as references for me in the past, and last year had no trouble getting their letters in on time. Had I been here, at home, during November and December, I likely would have checked every few days to see if they'd submitted letters or not, and I certainly would have checked every day leading up to submission deadlines. Especially for the NSF GRFP.
I worked really hard on my NSF application this year. I completely re-wrote my research proposal and personal statement, and made significant changes to my research background essay. I asked for feedback and advice from two of my undergraduate advisers and two potential graduate advisers. I went through three drafts-- something I rarely do. I felt really, really good about that application. And, considering I received an honorable mention last year and was able to incorporate the advice I received from last years' reviewers, I felt I had a good shot at winning one of those illusive fellowships this time round.
All of that gone to waste, because someone I was counting on failed to come through. That, perhaps, is the most frustrating, the most disappointing, part of it all-- that the NSF won't consider my application because of something someone else was supposed to have done. Through no fault of my own.
After I received the email I accessed FastLane to see which of my three references had failed to submit a letter. It hadn't even occurred to me to check FastLane when I got back from my fieldwork stint at the end of December. For one thing, I knew it was too late at that point to do anything about it, and, for another, I'd received emails from several schools about having received recommendation letters, which led me to believe that all three of my references had submitted their letters on time.
I called my former thesis adviser, Walt, and asked for his advice. I wasn't sure how to approach the situation, if there was anything, anything at all, that I could do. And I didn't want to interact with the person who forgot the letter, because I wouldn't even know what to say.
He was shocked to hear that said person hadn't submitted his letter. It is extremely uncharacteristic of him, and, of my three references, he's typically the most reliable. Perhaps something had gone wrong, then? Perhaps the issue was on NSF's end, and not on mine? Walt told me he'd look into and get back to me. Later that day, he sent me a brief email, that said only, "We put a call into NSF. Hang tight."
I really wish he'd been more detailed. Does this mean that the letter in question had been submitted, but had gotten lost somewhere in cyberspace? Does this mean that, maybe, just maybe, it was something the NSF did, and not my reference, that resulted in an incomplete application? Is there any teensy tiny itty bitty measly little squitty chance that the NSF will realize some sort of mistake and reconsider my application? Or is it really just that my reference forgot, didn't submit on time, and I'll be left to deal with the implications, and the idea that all the work I put into my application this year will be for nothing, and that my application won't even be reviewed?
I hope I hear back from them soon. I just want to know, one way or the other. But right now, it really does look as if I won't even have a shot at the NSF GRF this year. And there's nothing I can do, or could have done, about it.
What a great way to start off in 2011, eh?
EDIT: It's official. NSF returned my reference's inquiries. They will not consider my application this year. *heavy sigh*
Thursday, October 28, 2010
So Little Time
With the start date for my surprise field job rapidly approaching, I've realized just how many things I have to take care of before leaving. In addition to the obvious tasks (collecting the appropriate gear, making travel plans, packing, etc.) I also have eight graduate school applications and two fellowship applications to complete. And I'm running out of days!
Not only was the field job I accepted unexpected, it was last-minute fill for the project. The work starts the beginning of November. Understandably, just over a week ago I thought I had more than five weeks left to revise and refine my application for the NSF GRFP, and almost seven weeks before the earliest grad school application deadlines. Now I'm going to be in the field-- and away from computer and internet access-- for the critical weeks leading up to application deadlines, and the deadlines themselves.
Luckily, I made a lot of progress on my proposed research for the NSF GRF after my trip to visit graduate schools at the end of September. But I hadn't written my personal statement or research background for the NSF. Additionally, after critically evaluating my essays from last year's applications, I decided to completely rework my statement of purpose. That, added to the fact that my statement of purpose must be specifically tailored to each school to which I'm applying, means a ridiculous amount of work in a very short amount of time.
I've been trying to schedule tasks out in advance, to try and keep myself on track and ensure that I get everything completed on time, but I'm already starting to get worn down, and I've lost motivation. I'm taking a few hours off this evening to relax and try to re-set my mindset. I'm the type of person who needs to be ahead of the game-- I don't like feeling rushed, and I'm starting to worry that the lack of preparation time might leave my essays a little less polished than I need them to be.
Not only was the field job I accepted unexpected, it was last-minute fill for the project. The work starts the beginning of November. Understandably, just over a week ago I thought I had more than five weeks left to revise and refine my application for the NSF GRFP, and almost seven weeks before the earliest grad school application deadlines. Now I'm going to be in the field-- and away from computer and internet access-- for the critical weeks leading up to application deadlines, and the deadlines themselves.
Luckily, I made a lot of progress on my proposed research for the NSF GRF after my trip to visit graduate schools at the end of September. But I hadn't written my personal statement or research background for the NSF. Additionally, after critically evaluating my essays from last year's applications, I decided to completely rework my statement of purpose. That, added to the fact that my statement of purpose must be specifically tailored to each school to which I'm applying, means a ridiculous amount of work in a very short amount of time.
I've been trying to schedule tasks out in advance, to try and keep myself on track and ensure that I get everything completed on time, but I'm already starting to get worn down, and I've lost motivation. I'm taking a few hours off this evening to relax and try to re-set my mindset. I'm the type of person who needs to be ahead of the game-- I don't like feeling rushed, and I'm starting to worry that the lack of preparation time might leave my essays a little less polished than I need them to be.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
The Campaign Trail
Sorry it's been so long since I've updated. I was gone all of last week and jumped straight back in to work this week while simultaneously trying to ride a wave of motivation towards writing application essays-- somewhat successfully. When I returned to work on Monday, Joe, my BBF (best barn friend) asked if I'd been accepted anywhere (being both wonderfully supportive and woefully uninformed about the whole process). I told him that, no, my visits didn't guarantee acceptance, I was just going to schmooze a little and make myself known. "So you were campaigning, then?"
Yeah. That sounds about right.
For the last few months I've been sending out letters introducing myself and declaring my intentions. I've talked with people on the phone and had lengthy email sessions with several individuals. I've traversed across the country to meet with influential people face-to-face, to shake hands and show my winning smile and share my ideas for the future, all in the hope of garnering enough support to get my name on the ballot and collecting enough votes to win that elusive, illustrious position.
At least I don't have to worry about smear campaigns (er...recommendation writers, am I right?) or making those bloody TV adverts defacing my competitors with ridiculously out-of-context quotes and statistics gleaned from obscure sources.
I left early in the morning two weeks ago and began my journey to visit graduates schools. It's not the first time I've traveled alone, but it was the lengthiest trip I've ever made solo, and certainly included the largest number of destinations.
I started at a school I was a little unsure about, meeting with a professor whose research interests aren't quite in line with my own. Why did I even bother, you ask? Another professor at the school interests me a great deal, but was in the field when I visited. I figured if I made a good impression on the less interesting prof, he might pass the word along to the other when he returns. And besides, it won't hurt to tell the interesting individual that I was keen enough on the school to make a trip out to visit before applying.
I was surprised, however, at how much I liked the community. The campus wasn't anything special-- it was more or less like every other university campus out there. But the town itself was really neat, and had quite a few perks I'd never see in My Home Town. Most of the people I met were really friendly and genuinely seemed to love living there, and that was invaluable information, because the school is in a location I might not have been keen on considering before I visited.
The second campus I visited was that of my dream school, the school I'd most likely choose to attend if accepted several places. I've heard and read nothing but good things about the adviser and his students, and of the schools I feel I have a decent shot at, his research interests me the most. I was very nervous to meet this individual, but my interactions with him went very smoothly and for the most part I feel like I made a solid impression. If it's possible, I'm even more infatuated now with his lab and the program than I was before.
There were just two things about my visit that were disappointing. One, I really disliked the town. I was surprised, because most people I talked to raved about it, so perhaps there was something I wasn't seeing, or maybe it takes some getting used to. But it didn't feel right to me. Maybe it was the size of the city, or the people, or the noise, but I didn't immediately feel comfortable there. I loved the campus, however, and I suppose most of my time would likely be spent there anyway. It's just something I'll have to consider if I'm lucky enough to get in.
That's the second thing-- acceptance rates for this particular program are extremely low, and each professor usually takes only a single student each year. Throughout the course of my meeting with the adviser, I could tell he was being as circumspect as possible with regards to my questions about the selection process. I know he receives upwards of fifty applications a year, and many people visit his lab before applying. He also told me that the criteria he uses to select individuals for his lab change every year based on a number of indeterminable factors-- the progress of his current students, the mesh of research ideas in his lab, current lab dynamics, and his own shifting research interests-- none of which are things I can account for in my application. I suppose I'll just have to give it a shot and hope for the best.
I visited the third school opportunistically. Originally, it wasn't a school I'd strongly considered, but I received email responses from two professors in the department just before finalizing my travel plans, and figured out that, with its relative proximity to school no. 2, I wouldn't have much trouble working in a visit. I wrote both professors back and told them I'd be in the area, and was lucky enough to schedule a meeting with one of the two... only to visit the campus and find the professor absent.
This was the largest setback of my entire trip, but one I understand. I showed up at the adviser's office in time for our meeting, only to find the door locked. Assuming he was running late, I waited around a while and tried again. When he still hadn't arrived, I wandered down the hall of the building until I found someone working in their office with the door open, and asked where I might find the professor. "Oh, he's not here right now. We received an email from him late last night. He had a family emergency and had to fly home unexpectedly. Did you have a meeting with him? I'm sorry." Ah well.
I thanked the person and left, disappointed but sympathetic. I sent the professor an email that afternoon telling him how I'd been to campus for our meeting and found him absent, learning that he'd be called away by an emergency. I told him I hoped it wasn't anything too serious, and reiterated my interest in the program and his lab. I haven't heard back from him, but if my message goes unanswered I'll send him another letter in a few weeks. He likely forgot entirely that he was ever supposed to have met me in the first place, but hopefully at some point he realizes it and is still willing to consider my application.
The last campus I visited was a toss-up. Before visiting, I liked the professor and the location, but wasn't sure about the program or the school. Post-visit, those things remain true. The program is split between social science and ecology. It requires a large number of prerequisites that many people coming from science backgrounds won't have, like economics, sociology, and political science. Deficiencies in these areas have to be remedied in the first two years, which would result in a lot of additional coursework for me. The school itself has mixed reputations, some programs outstanding, others terrible. The campus is unique, and the town is in a great location with a lot of opportunities for outdoor recreation.
What I really liked about the last school I visited, though, were the people. I met with two of the professor's three current graduate students, sat in on a paper discussion with most of the people in the department present, and had a fairly casual, lengthy conversation with the adviser. His grad students were welcoming, friendly, and extremely helpful, and had mostly positive feelings about the lab. The adviser was laid-back and seemed genuinely interested in my ideas for potential PhD theses. When I left campus I felt good about having been there-- of the four schools I visited I think meeting the people at the last school was probably the most helpful, and I'm cautiously optimistic now about my chances for admission there. If I were accepted to more than one school, I'd have to think hard about the program requirements before accepting, but I certainly wouldn't have trouble attending if it was my only choice.
I returned home late last Sunday and didn't even have time to unpack before returning to work Monday. Going back to work was hard-- I'd just spent time tantalizingly close to the environment in which I want to be (where I would be right now, were it not for last year's failures), only return to the tedious, more or less menial barn work I'll be faced with for at least another three months, and knowing full well that I won't get out of it until next August at the earliest, and that's only if this round of applications have a significantly better outcome than the last.
Nonetheless, I found my brief interaction with the grad school world to be a strong motivator, and set out this week to work on my research proposal for the NSF GRFP. I was finally able to assimilate my ideas and complete a rough draft of my proposal. I'm hoping to send it off to several people for critique, including a couple potential advisers. I'm going to try and wring out every last drop of motivation that I can, and work on admissions essays next week. If I can manage it, I'd like to have all my applications submitted by the end of the first week in November, if not earlier. It's a lofty goal, but one I hope I can achieve.
Yeah. That sounds about right.
For the last few months I've been sending out letters introducing myself and declaring my intentions. I've talked with people on the phone and had lengthy email sessions with several individuals. I've traversed across the country to meet with influential people face-to-face, to shake hands and show my winning smile and share my ideas for the future, all in the hope of garnering enough support to get my name on the ballot and collecting enough votes to win that elusive, illustrious position.
At least I don't have to worry about smear campaigns (er...recommendation writers, am I right?) or making those bloody TV adverts defacing my competitors with ridiculously out-of-context quotes and statistics gleaned from obscure sources.
I left early in the morning two weeks ago and began my journey to visit graduates schools. It's not the first time I've traveled alone, but it was the lengthiest trip I've ever made solo, and certainly included the largest number of destinations.
I started at a school I was a little unsure about, meeting with a professor whose research interests aren't quite in line with my own. Why did I even bother, you ask? Another professor at the school interests me a great deal, but was in the field when I visited. I figured if I made a good impression on the less interesting prof, he might pass the word along to the other when he returns. And besides, it won't hurt to tell the interesting individual that I was keen enough on the school to make a trip out to visit before applying.
I was surprised, however, at how much I liked the community. The campus wasn't anything special-- it was more or less like every other university campus out there. But the town itself was really neat, and had quite a few perks I'd never see in My Home Town. Most of the people I met were really friendly and genuinely seemed to love living there, and that was invaluable information, because the school is in a location I might not have been keen on considering before I visited.
The second campus I visited was that of my dream school, the school I'd most likely choose to attend if accepted several places. I've heard and read nothing but good things about the adviser and his students, and of the schools I feel I have a decent shot at, his research interests me the most. I was very nervous to meet this individual, but my interactions with him went very smoothly and for the most part I feel like I made a solid impression. If it's possible, I'm even more infatuated now with his lab and the program than I was before.
There were just two things about my visit that were disappointing. One, I really disliked the town. I was surprised, because most people I talked to raved about it, so perhaps there was something I wasn't seeing, or maybe it takes some getting used to. But it didn't feel right to me. Maybe it was the size of the city, or the people, or the noise, but I didn't immediately feel comfortable there. I loved the campus, however, and I suppose most of my time would likely be spent there anyway. It's just something I'll have to consider if I'm lucky enough to get in.
That's the second thing-- acceptance rates for this particular program are extremely low, and each professor usually takes only a single student each year. Throughout the course of my meeting with the adviser, I could tell he was being as circumspect as possible with regards to my questions about the selection process. I know he receives upwards of fifty applications a year, and many people visit his lab before applying. He also told me that the criteria he uses to select individuals for his lab change every year based on a number of indeterminable factors-- the progress of his current students, the mesh of research ideas in his lab, current lab dynamics, and his own shifting research interests-- none of which are things I can account for in my application. I suppose I'll just have to give it a shot and hope for the best.
I visited the third school opportunistically. Originally, it wasn't a school I'd strongly considered, but I received email responses from two professors in the department just before finalizing my travel plans, and figured out that, with its relative proximity to school no. 2, I wouldn't have much trouble working in a visit. I wrote both professors back and told them I'd be in the area, and was lucky enough to schedule a meeting with one of the two... only to visit the campus and find the professor absent.
This was the largest setback of my entire trip, but one I understand. I showed up at the adviser's office in time for our meeting, only to find the door locked. Assuming he was running late, I waited around a while and tried again. When he still hadn't arrived, I wandered down the hall of the building until I found someone working in their office with the door open, and asked where I might find the professor. "Oh, he's not here right now. We received an email from him late last night. He had a family emergency and had to fly home unexpectedly. Did you have a meeting with him? I'm sorry." Ah well.
I thanked the person and left, disappointed but sympathetic. I sent the professor an email that afternoon telling him how I'd been to campus for our meeting and found him absent, learning that he'd be called away by an emergency. I told him I hoped it wasn't anything too serious, and reiterated my interest in the program and his lab. I haven't heard back from him, but if my message goes unanswered I'll send him another letter in a few weeks. He likely forgot entirely that he was ever supposed to have met me in the first place, but hopefully at some point he realizes it and is still willing to consider my application.
The last campus I visited was a toss-up. Before visiting, I liked the professor and the location, but wasn't sure about the program or the school. Post-visit, those things remain true. The program is split between social science and ecology. It requires a large number of prerequisites that many people coming from science backgrounds won't have, like economics, sociology, and political science. Deficiencies in these areas have to be remedied in the first two years, which would result in a lot of additional coursework for me. The school itself has mixed reputations, some programs outstanding, others terrible. The campus is unique, and the town is in a great location with a lot of opportunities for outdoor recreation.
What I really liked about the last school I visited, though, were the people. I met with two of the professor's three current graduate students, sat in on a paper discussion with most of the people in the department present, and had a fairly casual, lengthy conversation with the adviser. His grad students were welcoming, friendly, and extremely helpful, and had mostly positive feelings about the lab. The adviser was laid-back and seemed genuinely interested in my ideas for potential PhD theses. When I left campus I felt good about having been there-- of the four schools I visited I think meeting the people at the last school was probably the most helpful, and I'm cautiously optimistic now about my chances for admission there. If I were accepted to more than one school, I'd have to think hard about the program requirements before accepting, but I certainly wouldn't have trouble attending if it was my only choice.
I returned home late last Sunday and didn't even have time to unpack before returning to work Monday. Going back to work was hard-- I'd just spent time tantalizingly close to the environment in which I want to be (where I would be right now, were it not for last year's failures), only return to the tedious, more or less menial barn work I'll be faced with for at least another three months, and knowing full well that I won't get out of it until next August at the earliest, and that's only if this round of applications have a significantly better outcome than the last.
Nonetheless, I found my brief interaction with the grad school world to be a strong motivator, and set out this week to work on my research proposal for the NSF GRFP. I was finally able to assimilate my ideas and complete a rough draft of my proposal. I'm hoping to send it off to several people for critique, including a couple potential advisers. I'm going to try and wring out every last drop of motivation that I can, and work on admissions essays next week. If I can manage it, I'd like to have all my applications submitted by the end of the first week in November, if not earlier. It's a lofty goal, but one I hope I can achieve.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
The NSF GRFP
After carefully reviewing the National Science Foundation's announcement dates for their Graduate Research Fellowship Program, or GRFP, from previous years, I was almost certain they'd announce this year's recipients on April 9th. It seems in years past, they've almost always sent out emails on Fridays or Mondays, so to get the email this past Tuesday morning, the 6th, was unexpected.
I'd convinced myself that this week would be good for me-- great, even. After all, I had it coming, right? Especially after having put so much work into my undergraduate education and then waiting so many months hearing nothing but bad news. So I was disappointed, although not particularly surprised, to read the title of the email in my inbox: "NSF GRFP Honorable Mention Notification."
No, I was not awarded a Graduate Research Fellowship. I did receive an honorable mention.
On the one hand, it makes a lot of sense. This was my first time applying for a major grant. The proposal I used was (to my mind) unique and exciting, but something I'd adapted from a course assignment completed several months previously. I didn't spend a great deal of time modifying it to fit the submission criteria, and I certainly didn't spend hours agonizing over the little details-- what to include, what to omit, this word or that one, this reference here or there.
Additionally, as I've been coming to understand more and more over these past few weeks, I'm still considered very young and rather inexperienced in the field of ecology. I may feel prepared for graduate study, but there are others who have more field seasons accrued, more research experience, more publications, more contacts. And I'm sure there are plenty of people who've applied for the GRF more than one time. There's something to be said for having gone through several rounds of the application process, if for no other reason than the fact that the feedback given by reviewers may prove to be useful to applicants in subsequent years.
On the other hand, I can't help but feel a little cheated. I suppose having received the honorable mention is better than nothing, but, as one of my undergraduate advisers noted, it really seems like runner-up in a beauty contest and no money to write home about. Realistically, it's nothing more than another line on my CV, and in the long run, who's really going to care about that? I think in some ways my disappointment is made all the worse by the fact that so many GRF's were awarded this year. 2000 applicants received fellowships this year-- 752 more than were awarded last year, and 1087 more than were awarded the year before that.
I suppose there's something to be said for having applied. I'm more familiar now with the guidelines for GRF proposals, and I'll be better prepared next year for the formatting, if nothing else.
But, while one round of the application process may increase my awareness for margins and page limits, I'm not sure it has helped my understanding of what exactly reviewers are looking for. My rating sheets, written out by the three individuals that reviewed my proposal and personal statement, simply lacked any sort of constructive criticism, save for one review, which said that my proposed outreach was "a bit vague" and that I could have "developed laboratory methods more fully." Well, let me tell you... If the NSF allowed more than two pages to construct a graduate-level study complete with background information, methods, potential results, scientific and societal impacts, and references, I'd be glad to elaborate on laboratory methods and community outreach. As it is, the topic required a good deal of introductory information to make sure that anyone reviewing would be able to understand the premise of the study. Throw me a bone.
Apart from those two comments by one reviewer, everything else was highly positive. The phrases "exceptional academic background","great GPA and GRE", "outstanding LORs", "strong promise to be one of tomorrow's leaders", "demonstrated leadership", and "good knowledge of the scientific process" all made an appearance in my rating sheets. It may just be me, but those all seem like comments about an award-worthy individual, or at least someone that's well-suited to graduate study. If that's the case, I have trouble seeing why I wasn't one of the lucky 2000, and even more so, why I haven't been accepted to grad school yet. How many people apply for the NSF GRFP every year, anyway?
I will admit, the hardest blow of not having received a GRF came in relation to my applications themselves. I'd convinced myself that having a GRF in hand would greatly increase my chances of acceptance to the three schools from which I hadn't yet heard. In truth, it very well may have paved the way for me to start my graduate studies. But I suppose it's no use dwelling on those thoughts now, and I'll just have to wait and try again next year.
I'd convinced myself that this week would be good for me-- great, even. After all, I had it coming, right? Especially after having put so much work into my undergraduate education and then waiting so many months hearing nothing but bad news. So I was disappointed, although not particularly surprised, to read the title of the email in my inbox: "NSF GRFP Honorable Mention Notification."
No, I was not awarded a Graduate Research Fellowship. I did receive an honorable mention.
On the one hand, it makes a lot of sense. This was my first time applying for a major grant. The proposal I used was (to my mind) unique and exciting, but something I'd adapted from a course assignment completed several months previously. I didn't spend a great deal of time modifying it to fit the submission criteria, and I certainly didn't spend hours agonizing over the little details-- what to include, what to omit, this word or that one, this reference here or there.
Additionally, as I've been coming to understand more and more over these past few weeks, I'm still considered very young and rather inexperienced in the field of ecology. I may feel prepared for graduate study, but there are others who have more field seasons accrued, more research experience, more publications, more contacts. And I'm sure there are plenty of people who've applied for the GRF more than one time. There's something to be said for having gone through several rounds of the application process, if for no other reason than the fact that the feedback given by reviewers may prove to be useful to applicants in subsequent years.
On the other hand, I can't help but feel a little cheated. I suppose having received the honorable mention is better than nothing, but, as one of my undergraduate advisers noted, it really seems like runner-up in a beauty contest and no money to write home about. Realistically, it's nothing more than another line on my CV, and in the long run, who's really going to care about that? I think in some ways my disappointment is made all the worse by the fact that so many GRF's were awarded this year. 2000 applicants received fellowships this year-- 752 more than were awarded last year, and 1087 more than were awarded the year before that.
I suppose there's something to be said for having applied. I'm more familiar now with the guidelines for GRF proposals, and I'll be better prepared next year for the formatting, if nothing else.
But, while one round of the application process may increase my awareness for margins and page limits, I'm not sure it has helped my understanding of what exactly reviewers are looking for. My rating sheets, written out by the three individuals that reviewed my proposal and personal statement, simply lacked any sort of constructive criticism, save for one review, which said that my proposed outreach was "a bit vague" and that I could have "developed laboratory methods more fully." Well, let me tell you... If the NSF allowed more than two pages to construct a graduate-level study complete with background information, methods, potential results, scientific and societal impacts, and references, I'd be glad to elaborate on laboratory methods and community outreach. As it is, the topic required a good deal of introductory information to make sure that anyone reviewing would be able to understand the premise of the study. Throw me a bone.
Apart from those two comments by one reviewer, everything else was highly positive. The phrases "exceptional academic background","great GPA and GRE", "outstanding LORs", "strong promise to be one of tomorrow's leaders", "demonstrated leadership", and "good knowledge of the scientific process" all made an appearance in my rating sheets. It may just be me, but those all seem like comments about an award-worthy individual, or at least someone that's well-suited to graduate study. If that's the case, I have trouble seeing why I wasn't one of the lucky 2000, and even more so, why I haven't been accepted to grad school yet. How many people apply for the NSF GRFP every year, anyway?
I will admit, the hardest blow of not having received a GRF came in relation to my applications themselves. I'd convinced myself that having a GRF in hand would greatly increase my chances of acceptance to the three schools from which I hadn't yet heard. In truth, it very well may have paved the way for me to start my graduate studies. But I suppose it's no use dwelling on those thoughts now, and I'll just have to wait and try again next year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)