Advice to Applicants of the NSF's Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP)
|
Good luck to this year's applicants! And congrats to last year’s awardees!
To add your essays to the list below, head on over to my contact page and send me an email. :) As a successful applicant to the program in 2013, I wanted to share my two cents on the process and what might help future applicants stand out. That being said, the evaluation process can be somewhat... random... so if you don't get it, keep your head high! It says nothing about your scientific ability or potential to succeed in grad school. You gain so much just from the process of applying. So, hang on to that and then just move on to the next thing. Below, you'll find an overview of the program, tips and advice on writing the essays, a suggested timeline, and some examples from past applicants. But if you have another question I haven't answered here, please feel free to send me an email, and I'll add it in. :) Due to the volume of requests I get each year to review essays, I have had to start limiting which ones I am able to review. But I will do my best to review as many as I can! Priority will be given to women, underrepresented minorities, and folks applying to smaller universities. Important note: As of 2016, you may now only apply to the program once as a undergraduate and once as a graduate student. If you applied in 2015 as a grad student and did not win, you are 'grandfathered' into the old rules and may apply once more. Overview
The National Science Foundation's Graduate Research Fellowship Program is the oldest fellowship of its kind, and has acceptance rates on par with some of the most prestigious fellowships in the country. Since the start of the program in 1952, there have been over 500,000 applicants, and more than 46,500 proposals funded. 40 of those awardees have gone on to become Nobel laureates, and over 400 are now a part of the National Academy of Sciences. The fellowship offers a 3-year, annual $34,000 stipend, and $12,000 cost of education allowance which goes toward tuition and fees. If accepted to the program, you are also offered opportunities for international research experience, professional development, and access to XSEDE; not to mention... no more TA-ing, and no more restrictions on what you're allowed to research because the grant your adviser is funding you on doesn't cover that area. You are free to work on your own research.
For more details on which disciplines are supported and who can apply, here is the NSF's summary of the program. |
Updated: April 2020
|
What do I need to complete to apply?
2 essays
3 recommendation letters
Fastlane (online submission system) requirements
2 essays
3 recommendation letters
Fastlane (online submission system) requirements
Personal, Relevant Background, and Future Goals Statement (3 pages maximum)
This is how your review panel will get to know the real you. Sure, they'll have your transcripts and list of awards or whatnot (see Fastlane extras below), but that won't be as important as what they will find in this essay. In a presentation by the program director at the time, Dr. Gisele Muller-Parker, she said "the GRFP program funds people, not projects." They want to know that whoever they fund will be an autonomous, self-motivated researcher. They want to find someone who has significant potential to advance scientific knowledge (intellectual merit), AND benefit society (broader impacts). That's why they are now requiring separate sections for each of these criteria in both essays (more on these in the Advice section below).
Here is how I ended up breaking down my first essay:
1.5 pages: Previous research experience (relevant background)
1.0 page: Intellectual merit and broader impacts (personal statement)
0.5 page: Current research and future goals
But composition will vary based on how much research experience you have and what you want to highlight about yourself. I have read some successfully funded essays where the authors speak very little of their previous research (some applicants don't have much previous research experience), but they instead decided to focus on something that made them stand out from the crowd. These are the 3 pages that will help the reviewers remember you. What makes you unique? Why are you the better choice than all the rest of the applicants? Get your confidence hat out and brag away! This is also the place where you will make a case for why you will succeed at graduate research. What have you learned? How do you know this is what you want to do? And, finally, they want to find someone who has the capacity to be a leader. Talk about specific experiences where you had to take charge, face adversity, and grow, and how those experiences will help you succeed in the future.
This is how your review panel will get to know the real you. Sure, they'll have your transcripts and list of awards or whatnot (see Fastlane extras below), but that won't be as important as what they will find in this essay. In a presentation by the program director at the time, Dr. Gisele Muller-Parker, she said "the GRFP program funds people, not projects." They want to know that whoever they fund will be an autonomous, self-motivated researcher. They want to find someone who has significant potential to advance scientific knowledge (intellectual merit), AND benefit society (broader impacts). That's why they are now requiring separate sections for each of these criteria in both essays (more on these in the Advice section below).
Here is how I ended up breaking down my first essay:
1.5 pages: Previous research experience (relevant background)
1.0 page: Intellectual merit and broader impacts (personal statement)
0.5 page: Current research and future goals
But composition will vary based on how much research experience you have and what you want to highlight about yourself. I have read some successfully funded essays where the authors speak very little of their previous research (some applicants don't have much previous research experience), but they instead decided to focus on something that made them stand out from the crowd. These are the 3 pages that will help the reviewers remember you. What makes you unique? Why are you the better choice than all the rest of the applicants? Get your confidence hat out and brag away! This is also the place where you will make a case for why you will succeed at graduate research. What have you learned? How do you know this is what you want to do? And, finally, they want to find someone who has the capacity to be a leader. Talk about specific experiences where you had to take charge, face adversity, and grow, and how those experiences will help you succeed in the future.
Graduate Research Plan Statement (2 pages maximum)
This is the meat and potatoes for what you plan to research (yes, I'm from the Midwest). This is how the review panel will determine if you are able to comb through the literature, find a 'knowledge gap', and then propose a way to fill that gap. This needs to be the clearest and most concrete part of your application (no vague statements of action). It should be easy to read, and should link to your Personal, Relevant Background, and Future Goals Statement somehow. Reviewers like to see how your previous experiences have led you, or motivated you, to pursue this particular line of research.
Here's how I broke mine down the second time around: single spaced, some bold and italicized words to highlight sections or important information, and as many specific details as I could fit into each sentence as possible. 2 pages runs out quickly, so every sentence, and every word is important. The feedback from my first review panel in 2013 recommended I have a defined set of hypotheses, and that my experimental approach should clearly answer the scientific aims or research objectives (see Examples at the bottom of this page).
Introduction
Research Objectives
Hypotheses
Preliminary Results (if you have any from previous research)
Study Site (if proposed research has a field work component)
Experimental Approach
Intellectual Merit
Broader Impacts
References
This is the meat and potatoes for what you plan to research (yes, I'm from the Midwest). This is how the review panel will determine if you are able to comb through the literature, find a 'knowledge gap', and then propose a way to fill that gap. This needs to be the clearest and most concrete part of your application (no vague statements of action). It should be easy to read, and should link to your Personal, Relevant Background, and Future Goals Statement somehow. Reviewers like to see how your previous experiences have led you, or motivated you, to pursue this particular line of research.
Here's how I broke mine down the second time around: single spaced, some bold and italicized words to highlight sections or important information, and as many specific details as I could fit into each sentence as possible. 2 pages runs out quickly, so every sentence, and every word is important. The feedback from my first review panel in 2013 recommended I have a defined set of hypotheses, and that my experimental approach should clearly answer the scientific aims or research objectives (see Examples at the bottom of this page).
Introduction
Research Objectives
Hypotheses
Preliminary Results (if you have any from previous research)
Study Site (if proposed research has a field work component)
Experimental Approach
Intellectual Merit
Broader Impacts
References
Recommendation Letters (3)
You've probably heard it before, but I'll say it again, these need to be people who know you. Make sure they have 1) read both of your statements, 2) know where you are applying or going to graduate school, 3) have a copy of your CV so they can reference awards and past activities, and 4) have a clear idea of what your goals for the future are. One of the questions I get asked a lot is 'What type of information should referees include in their GRFP reference letter?' I recommend emailing your references the list below, along with a description of the intellectual merit and broader impacts criteria. You'll want each of your references to be able to speak to both. Don't be afraid to ask each of them to include specific points you would like to highlight. They'll actually probably appreciate the direction with how busy their schedules can be.
A reference letter-writer should:
- indicate department and institution, how long they have known you, and in what capacity
- comment on your potential to:
+ succeed in graduate school
+ conduct original research
+ communicate effectively
+ work cooperatively with peers and supervisors
+ make unique contributions to your chosen discipline and to society in general
- comment on your leadership potential both in your chosen field, and as a member of the scientific community
- discuss a specific positive experience or interaction they have had with you
- Note: if you referee is your research supervisor, they should comment on the originality of your proposal, and communicate what role she or he played in assisting you with your proposal.
You've probably heard it before, but I'll say it again, these need to be people who know you. Make sure they have 1) read both of your statements, 2) know where you are applying or going to graduate school, 3) have a copy of your CV so they can reference awards and past activities, and 4) have a clear idea of what your goals for the future are. One of the questions I get asked a lot is 'What type of information should referees include in their GRFP reference letter?' I recommend emailing your references the list below, along with a description of the intellectual merit and broader impacts criteria. You'll want each of your references to be able to speak to both. Don't be afraid to ask each of them to include specific points you would like to highlight. They'll actually probably appreciate the direction with how busy their schedules can be.
A reference letter-writer should:
- indicate department and institution, how long they have known you, and in what capacity
- comment on your potential to:
+ succeed in graduate school
+ conduct original research
+ communicate effectively
+ work cooperatively with peers and supervisors
+ make unique contributions to your chosen discipline and to society in general
- comment on your leadership potential both in your chosen field, and as a member of the scientific community
- discuss a specific positive experience or interaction they have had with you
- Note: if you referee is your research supervisor, they should comment on the originality of your proposal, and communicate what role she or he played in assisting you with your proposal.
Fastlane Application Extras
1) Transcripts (note: they do NOT need your GRE scores)
2) Proposed MS or PhD program and collegiate education experiences
3) List of fellowships, scholarships, teaching and work experiences relevant to your field of study
4) List of significant academic honors, publications, and presentations
5) Field of Study (this helps determine your panel; more on that below)
6) Proposed research title and keywords
1) Transcripts (note: they do NOT need your GRE scores)
2) Proposed MS or PhD program and collegiate education experiences
3) List of fellowships, scholarships, teaching and work experiences relevant to your field of study
4) List of significant academic honors, publications, and presentations
5) Field of Study (this helps determine your panel; more on that below)
6) Proposed research title and keywords
Suggested Timeline
Alright, so I know scientists wait 'til the last minute to do everything, but if you start early, you'll have plenty of time to have multiple people read your essays, write your recommendations letters, etc. Also, if you're finishing up your senior year of undergrad, or just getting started in grad school, you're going to have a million other things going on, so by spreading it out, it doesn't become such a burden. Here's the schedule I tried to stick to both times I applied:
June: Find out as much information as you can about the program. After you're done here, check the NSF GRFP website, thegradcafe forum, or some of the resources I have listed below.
July: Start reading the literature and combing through the discussion/conclusions sections for potential 'knowledge gaps' you could propose to 'fill in' with your Graduate Research Plan Statement. Reach out to potential advisers (if you're an undergraduate student), or meet with your current research adviser (if you're a graduate student) to discuss potential topics for your proposal.
August: Outline & draft Graduate Research Plan Statement, contact recommendation letter writers and set up a brief meeting with each
September: Outline & draft Personal, Relevant Background, & Future Goals Statement, send to reference letter writers for review/editing
October: Revise/edit statements to fit within page limits, check in with reference letter writers
End of October: Submit a day early!
Wait for what will seem like FOREVER............
Late March/Early April: Hear back from NSF!
May 1st: Decide!
Alright, so I know scientists wait 'til the last minute to do everything, but if you start early, you'll have plenty of time to have multiple people read your essays, write your recommendations letters, etc. Also, if you're finishing up your senior year of undergrad, or just getting started in grad school, you're going to have a million other things going on, so by spreading it out, it doesn't become such a burden. Here's the schedule I tried to stick to both times I applied:
June: Find out as much information as you can about the program. After you're done here, check the NSF GRFP website, thegradcafe forum, or some of the resources I have listed below.
July: Start reading the literature and combing through the discussion/conclusions sections for potential 'knowledge gaps' you could propose to 'fill in' with your Graduate Research Plan Statement. Reach out to potential advisers (if you're an undergraduate student), or meet with your current research adviser (if you're a graduate student) to discuss potential topics for your proposal.
August: Outline & draft Graduate Research Plan Statement, contact recommendation letter writers and set up a brief meeting with each
September: Outline & draft Personal, Relevant Background, & Future Goals Statement, send to reference letter writers for review/editing
October: Revise/edit statements to fit within page limits, check in with reference letter writers
End of October: Submit a day early!
Wait for what will seem like FOREVER............
Late March/Early April: Hear back from NSF!
May 1st: Decide!
My Advice
1. Read the ENTIRE solicitation.
This one may seem obvious, but I think every applicant has good intentions when they start reading it, and then they realize how long it is. It's a list of instructions, and the language is pretty dry, so it's easy to lose focus and start thinking about all the great stuff you're going to write, but the solicitation tells you exactly what you need to do in order to win. Read it carefully, and then reread it.
2. Research what has worked for others in the past.
There are a bunch of great resources out there, so go ahead and use them! More and more often, successful applicants are posting their proposals online, sometimes along with reviewer comments. It's helpful to see what others have done, and you'll have a better idea of what the reviewers are looking for. You can also join the conversation now, on Twitter (@NSFGRFP), on LinkedIn, or at thegradcafe forum.
3. Pick your field of study before you start writing.
Don't make this decision lightly! There are a lot of options for which field of study your proposed research may fall under (a list can be found at the end of the solicitation). There is also an interdisciplinary option (where you can pick more than one field), and an 'other' option where you fill in your own. These alternative options can be risky in my opinion though. The NSF uses your choice to inform their decision on who your review panel will be (which consists of 3 reviewers usually). If you choose the interdisciplinary or other option, you are probably going to get 1 or 2 reviewers from one field, and 1 or 2 from another field. Not 3 that are fluent in your interdisciplinary or specialized field. So, one or more of your reviewers may not have a knowledge base for the state of the field, or know what the standard practices are to be able to effectively evaluate the originality of your proposed research. You want them to find you impressive. In order to do that, they need to easily understand and identify with every word in your application. Also, choosing multiple or alternative fields makes it harder for you (see #6).
4. Find a knowledge gap.
Even though the GRFP program is constantly reminding applicants that they "fund people, not projects", I think reviewers have a hard time not making a judgement about whether they think the research is relevant/novel or not. Even if you don't know what it is exactly that you want to research in graduate school, pick a general field, and start reading about what's been done.
There are two ways you can get started:
1) Pick a school you're interested in, choose an adviser you could see yourself working with, read their publications.
I went with option 1 the first year, because I was an undergraduate and wasn't totally sure what I wanted to research yet. I knew that I wanted to combine chemistry and the environment, so I started searching Web of Science (check with your university library for how to log in) and came to atmospheric chemistry. I started reading the articles and writing down the authors' names. I looked up where they were located (university, government lab, etc.) and decided if that was a school/program I might want to attend. If all those things matched up, I emailed each of them and asked to set up a phone call to discuss their future research directions. Here's a sample email you could send to break the ice.
OR
2) Pick a general area of research you're interested in, and hit the literature.
If you are already in graduate school, you might want to go with option 2. Start with review articles, and look in the Discussion or Conclusions for 'future research directions' or 'knowledge gaps'. Take note of the authors that keep popping up, and take a look at what else they've done to get an idea of where the field is heading. Talk to your adviser and other researchers in your department/field too. Sometimes, the state of the field is well beyond what has recently been published, so it helps to talk to people and visit their websites (if they keep them updated).
5. Start with an outline.
After you've read the literature, taken some notes on your ideas for a project, and chosen a field of study, make an outline for what your 2-page proposal is going to look like. I would definitely start with a broad, impactful statement that relates to everyone who may read it (see examples essays). Then, throughout your introduction or background paragraph, start to narrow in (rather quickly) to your specific area of research and how it relates to that first statement. In this first paragraph, you should point out the knowledge gap you found too, so then you can transition into your specific research aims and hypotheses. Describe in detail your experimental design and how that will answer your science questions, and make sure to have both an intellectual merit and broader impacts section. See #9 for what the solicitation has to say about those.
Here are some hints I picked up from Writing Science by Dr. Josh Schimel:
1. Use the ABDCE structure: Action first, then Background, Development, Climax, and finish up with a strong Ending
2. Remember the SUCCES model: keep it Simple, Unexpected, Concrete, Credible, Emotional, and tell a Story
3. Goals: Create curiosity, define WHY knowledge gap is important, focus on science questions (not objectives)
4. Endings are power positions; end of sentence, end of paragraph, end of proposal; make them count
5. Paragraphs should be L-D structure: Lead-Development; make your point first, then describe
6. Sentences should have a opening (topic), an action (strong verb), and a resolution (stress)
1. Read the ENTIRE solicitation.
This one may seem obvious, but I think every applicant has good intentions when they start reading it, and then they realize how long it is. It's a list of instructions, and the language is pretty dry, so it's easy to lose focus and start thinking about all the great stuff you're going to write, but the solicitation tells you exactly what you need to do in order to win. Read it carefully, and then reread it.
2. Research what has worked for others in the past.
There are a bunch of great resources out there, so go ahead and use them! More and more often, successful applicants are posting their proposals online, sometimes along with reviewer comments. It's helpful to see what others have done, and you'll have a better idea of what the reviewers are looking for. You can also join the conversation now, on Twitter (@NSFGRFP), on LinkedIn, or at thegradcafe forum.
3. Pick your field of study before you start writing.
Don't make this decision lightly! There are a lot of options for which field of study your proposed research may fall under (a list can be found at the end of the solicitation). There is also an interdisciplinary option (where you can pick more than one field), and an 'other' option where you fill in your own. These alternative options can be risky in my opinion though. The NSF uses your choice to inform their decision on who your review panel will be (which consists of 3 reviewers usually). If you choose the interdisciplinary or other option, you are probably going to get 1 or 2 reviewers from one field, and 1 or 2 from another field. Not 3 that are fluent in your interdisciplinary or specialized field. So, one or more of your reviewers may not have a knowledge base for the state of the field, or know what the standard practices are to be able to effectively evaluate the originality of your proposed research. You want them to find you impressive. In order to do that, they need to easily understand and identify with every word in your application. Also, choosing multiple or alternative fields makes it harder for you (see #6).
4. Find a knowledge gap.
Even though the GRFP program is constantly reminding applicants that they "fund people, not projects", I think reviewers have a hard time not making a judgement about whether they think the research is relevant/novel or not. Even if you don't know what it is exactly that you want to research in graduate school, pick a general field, and start reading about what's been done.
There are two ways you can get started:
1) Pick a school you're interested in, choose an adviser you could see yourself working with, read their publications.
I went with option 1 the first year, because I was an undergraduate and wasn't totally sure what I wanted to research yet. I knew that I wanted to combine chemistry and the environment, so I started searching Web of Science (check with your university library for how to log in) and came to atmospheric chemistry. I started reading the articles and writing down the authors' names. I looked up where they were located (university, government lab, etc.) and decided if that was a school/program I might want to attend. If all those things matched up, I emailed each of them and asked to set up a phone call to discuss their future research directions. Here's a sample email you could send to break the ice.
OR
2) Pick a general area of research you're interested in, and hit the literature.
If you are already in graduate school, you might want to go with option 2. Start with review articles, and look in the Discussion or Conclusions for 'future research directions' or 'knowledge gaps'. Take note of the authors that keep popping up, and take a look at what else they've done to get an idea of where the field is heading. Talk to your adviser and other researchers in your department/field too. Sometimes, the state of the field is well beyond what has recently been published, so it helps to talk to people and visit their websites (if they keep them updated).
5. Start with an outline.
After you've read the literature, taken some notes on your ideas for a project, and chosen a field of study, make an outline for what your 2-page proposal is going to look like. I would definitely start with a broad, impactful statement that relates to everyone who may read it (see examples essays). Then, throughout your introduction or background paragraph, start to narrow in (rather quickly) to your specific area of research and how it relates to that first statement. In this first paragraph, you should point out the knowledge gap you found too, so then you can transition into your specific research aims and hypotheses. Describe in detail your experimental design and how that will answer your science questions, and make sure to have both an intellectual merit and broader impacts section. See #9 for what the solicitation has to say about those.
Here are some hints I picked up from Writing Science by Dr. Josh Schimel:
1. Use the ABDCE structure: Action first, then Background, Development, Climax, and finish up with a strong Ending
2. Remember the SUCCES model: keep it Simple, Unexpected, Concrete, Credible, Emotional, and tell a Story
3. Goals: Create curiosity, define WHY knowledge gap is important, focus on science questions (not objectives)
4. Endings are power positions; end of sentence, end of paragraph, end of proposal; make them count
5. Paragraphs should be L-D structure: Lead-Development; make your point first, then describe
6. Sentences should have a opening (topic), an action (strong verb), and a resolution (stress)
Also write an outline for what you want to highlight in your 3-page personal statement. Here are some questions I asked myself (and answered) before I started to write.
1. Why are you fascinated by your research area?
2. When did you become interested in your research area, and what have you learned about it so far?
3. How have you learned about your research area; classes, research experience, work, seminars, reading, etc?
4. If you have work or research experience, what did you learn (specific skills acquired)?
5. What is unique and distinctive about you and/or your life story? What makes you, you?
6. What are some specific examples of your leadership skills? Have you had to work on a team before?
7. Are there any gaps, discrepancies, or blemishes in your academic record?
8. Have you had to overcome any unique obstacles or hardships (economic, familial, physical, etc)?
9. What personal characteristics would others describe you as having (integrity, compassion, persistence, etc)? How
have you demonstrated these characteristics?
10. What are your personal and individual strengths? What are your weaknesses and how are you overcoming them?
11. How has scientific research helped you better understand society, the environment, etc?
12. What are your career goals? How will this fellowship help you achieve those goals?
13. Why might you be a stronger, and possibly more successful, candidate than other applicants?
14. What are the most compelling reasons you can give for the review panel to choose your proposal?
6. Write for the review panel.
You want to make sure that whoever reads your essays completely, and easily, understands everything you say. You want to be memorable. If I've learned anything from transitioning from a disciplinary field to an interdisciplinary one, is that each field has its own culture and language. For example, when you think about a chemist, what comes to mind? How about when you think of an engineer? A physicist, a psychologist, or a biologist? The list goes on and on, but each one has a history, and a culture that has developed over the years. I think it's helpful to keep this in mind when you're writing, and when you choose the most appropriate panel for your proposed research. You could be a physicist applying to an chemistry panel, or a geographer applying to an engineering panel. Just like knowing your audience before a presentation helps you tailor your slides, think about who you are writing for before you even start writing.
How the panel works: The NSF will receive your application, run a compliance check that looks for completeness (missing reference letters, etc), separate it based on what year you are (undergraduate, first year graduate student, nontraditional student, etc.) and then send it on to 3 reviewers in the field of study you selected. Each reviewer gets about 30 applications to read individually. Then, they meet with the other 2 reviewers (oftentimes in a virtual meeting) and decide together who the top candidates are that they want to recommend for funding. You want to make sure your proposal ends up in the 'fund' pile. Some things that could land you in the 'reject' pile are:
1. Not following directions: exceeding page limits, not addressing intellectual merit and broader impacts, etc.
2. Making it hard to read: large blocks of text with no headings, not writing FOR your reviewer
3. Repeating yourself: you want your essays to be connected but separate; use every sentence to tell the reviewer
something new about your potential to succeed
4. Writing style and content: don't be negative, dishonest, or use slang/abbreviations that aren't well known; check
your spelling and grammar too (a few mishaps are okay - see examples below - but do your best to proofread)
5. Plagiarism: make sure what you write is your own, you'll have to sign a certification to it before you submit
6. Vague statements: don't say you want to help humanity unless you can say specifically how, and don't say your
research is going to develop new methods, instruments, or data unless you say what kind (I made the latter
mistake the first time around)
7. Keep it clear, concrete, and concise.
Find your own voice and writing style. Stay away from jargon, prepositional phrases, and the long French or Latin versions of words when, in conversation, we normally use the short, Anglo-Saxon version instead (utilize vs use, initiate vs start, attempt vs try, methodology vs method, etc). They take up space, and it definitely doesn't make it any easier for your reviewer to read. Thanks again to Writing Science for those hints! Finally, the reviewer should be able to skim over your proposal and quickly be able to answer the following questions:
1. What is/are the science question(s)?
2. What are the objectives of the proposal?
3. What are the hypotheses?
4. How is the applicant testing those hypotheses?
5. Does this applicant/proposal have the potential to advance our scientific knowledge?
6. How will this applicant/proposal benefit society?
8. Choose your reference letter writers carefully.
This should be one of the first things you do, but take your time in deciding. Generally, whoever you think is going to be overseeing/advising your research plan, she or he should be one of your letter writers. The other two could be a mentor, a professor you had in class, a previous supervisor, or research adviser for example. They should know you well, and be able to comment on specific encounters they have had with you (see reference letter section). Once you have decided on who you will ask, email them early, and attach a description of the fellowship, and review criteria. Don't be afraid to tell them what you would like them to write about. This will ensure that your references are all writing about a different positive aspect about you, and your reviewers get a new piece of information with each letter. Send them your CV/resume and tell them what you have been up to lately. Schedule a lunch meeting and stay in touch throughout the application process.
Note: You can select up to 5 letter writers. Only 3 will be submitted to the review panel, and you get to choose which 3 those are in the Fastlane system. It's good to have 2 extras in case the others forget or get too busy, and end up not turning in their letters on time. Also, you might feel like you're nagging, but they usually appreciate a reminder email or two so they're not hurrying to write your letter the day before it's due.
9. Explicitly highlight intellectual merit and broader impacts.
These are the only 2 criteria the reviewers have to comment on (see reviewer feedback in Examples section below), so you want to make sure they stand out. Here's the description from the solicitation this year:
1. Why are you fascinated by your research area?
2. When did you become interested in your research area, and what have you learned about it so far?
3. How have you learned about your research area; classes, research experience, work, seminars, reading, etc?
4. If you have work or research experience, what did you learn (specific skills acquired)?
5. What is unique and distinctive about you and/or your life story? What makes you, you?
6. What are some specific examples of your leadership skills? Have you had to work on a team before?
7. Are there any gaps, discrepancies, or blemishes in your academic record?
8. Have you had to overcome any unique obstacles or hardships (economic, familial, physical, etc)?
9. What personal characteristics would others describe you as having (integrity, compassion, persistence, etc)? How
have you demonstrated these characteristics?
10. What are your personal and individual strengths? What are your weaknesses and how are you overcoming them?
11. How has scientific research helped you better understand society, the environment, etc?
12. What are your career goals? How will this fellowship help you achieve those goals?
13. Why might you be a stronger, and possibly more successful, candidate than other applicants?
14. What are the most compelling reasons you can give for the review panel to choose your proposal?
6. Write for the review panel.
You want to make sure that whoever reads your essays completely, and easily, understands everything you say. You want to be memorable. If I've learned anything from transitioning from a disciplinary field to an interdisciplinary one, is that each field has its own culture and language. For example, when you think about a chemist, what comes to mind? How about when you think of an engineer? A physicist, a psychologist, or a biologist? The list goes on and on, but each one has a history, and a culture that has developed over the years. I think it's helpful to keep this in mind when you're writing, and when you choose the most appropriate panel for your proposed research. You could be a physicist applying to an chemistry panel, or a geographer applying to an engineering panel. Just like knowing your audience before a presentation helps you tailor your slides, think about who you are writing for before you even start writing.
How the panel works: The NSF will receive your application, run a compliance check that looks for completeness (missing reference letters, etc), separate it based on what year you are (undergraduate, first year graduate student, nontraditional student, etc.) and then send it on to 3 reviewers in the field of study you selected. Each reviewer gets about 30 applications to read individually. Then, they meet with the other 2 reviewers (oftentimes in a virtual meeting) and decide together who the top candidates are that they want to recommend for funding. You want to make sure your proposal ends up in the 'fund' pile. Some things that could land you in the 'reject' pile are:
1. Not following directions: exceeding page limits, not addressing intellectual merit and broader impacts, etc.
2. Making it hard to read: large blocks of text with no headings, not writing FOR your reviewer
3. Repeating yourself: you want your essays to be connected but separate; use every sentence to tell the reviewer
something new about your potential to succeed
4. Writing style and content: don't be negative, dishonest, or use slang/abbreviations that aren't well known; check
your spelling and grammar too (a few mishaps are okay - see examples below - but do your best to proofread)
5. Plagiarism: make sure what you write is your own, you'll have to sign a certification to it before you submit
6. Vague statements: don't say you want to help humanity unless you can say specifically how, and don't say your
research is going to develop new methods, instruments, or data unless you say what kind (I made the latter
mistake the first time around)
7. Keep it clear, concrete, and concise.
Find your own voice and writing style. Stay away from jargon, prepositional phrases, and the long French or Latin versions of words when, in conversation, we normally use the short, Anglo-Saxon version instead (utilize vs use, initiate vs start, attempt vs try, methodology vs method, etc). They take up space, and it definitely doesn't make it any easier for your reviewer to read. Thanks again to Writing Science for those hints! Finally, the reviewer should be able to skim over your proposal and quickly be able to answer the following questions:
1. What is/are the science question(s)?
2. What are the objectives of the proposal?
3. What are the hypotheses?
4. How is the applicant testing those hypotheses?
5. Does this applicant/proposal have the potential to advance our scientific knowledge?
6. How will this applicant/proposal benefit society?
8. Choose your reference letter writers carefully.
This should be one of the first things you do, but take your time in deciding. Generally, whoever you think is going to be overseeing/advising your research plan, she or he should be one of your letter writers. The other two could be a mentor, a professor you had in class, a previous supervisor, or research adviser for example. They should know you well, and be able to comment on specific encounters they have had with you (see reference letter section). Once you have decided on who you will ask, email them early, and attach a description of the fellowship, and review criteria. Don't be afraid to tell them what you would like them to write about. This will ensure that your references are all writing about a different positive aspect about you, and your reviewers get a new piece of information with each letter. Send them your CV/resume and tell them what you have been up to lately. Schedule a lunch meeting and stay in touch throughout the application process.
Note: You can select up to 5 letter writers. Only 3 will be submitted to the review panel, and you get to choose which 3 those are in the Fastlane system. It's good to have 2 extras in case the others forget or get too busy, and end up not turning in their letters on time. Also, you might feel like you're nagging, but they usually appreciate a reminder email or two so they're not hurrying to write your letter the day before it's due.
9. Explicitly highlight intellectual merit and broader impacts.
These are the only 2 criteria the reviewers have to comment on (see reviewer feedback in Examples section below), so you want to make sure they stand out. Here's the description from the solicitation this year:
"The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and the Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes. The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:
1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to:
a. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields; and
b. Benefit society or advance desired society outcomes?
2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest & explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
4. How well-qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?
The NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the US; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education."
10. Plan to be done a day early.
If you've done it right, one extra day is not enough time to really add anything substantial to your application. You'll feel more relaxed if you're ready to submit a day early. Also, the system converts your word docs (or PDFs for that matter) into their own PDF format. The second time around, I submitted on the last day, and when the system converted my PDF application to their format, it pushed my personal statement onto the next page! I had to drop FOUR lines. I totally lost my cool. It wasn't a good feeling and it stressed me out. If you finish a day early though, you'll have plenty of time to rework that essay and make sure you submit without stress. :) Just be sure that when you submit, it is completely finished because once you submit, that's it! No changes.
Insights from the NSF
1. Research what the NSF has recently funded: Go to the NSF website, click on 'awards', 'search awards', and type in keywords related to your field of study.
2. Sign up for emails from the NSF: They send out promotional and informational emails about the GRFP as well as other job or internship opportunities.
3. Underrepresented fields/people are encouraged to apply: the social sciences are supported but not that many people apply! So, spread the word! The award has been revised to be more inclusive of nontraditional graduate students too, such as those who have been in the military/peace corps, or had to take time off school to work in order to provide for a family for example.
4. If you get honorable mention, don't get discouraged, they offer ~50 awards each year to the honorable mentions after offers are sent out and declinations sent back.
5. On average, ~800 applications are returned without review because of missing reference letters, not meeting page requirements, etc. You definitely don't want to be one of those!
6. NSF treats the intellectual merit and broader impacts as the most important aspects of the proposal, and equally important. Don't treat them as an afterthought.
7. Remember: You don't necessarily have to research exactly what you propose. If you decide to attend a different program than the one you talk about in your essays, or study in a different field, they have simple procedures for that.
8. In your personal statement, talk about what you have had to overcome to get to where you are today; what makes you different/stand out?
9. Contact a previous GRFP winner in your field by email to ask about their experience!
10. Hey faculty members! Want one of your graduate students to win a GRFP? Serve on a review panel! The best way to know a good application from a not-so-good one, is to read a whole bunch of them, right? :)
1. Research what the NSF has recently funded: Go to the NSF website, click on 'awards', 'search awards', and type in keywords related to your field of study.
2. Sign up for emails from the NSF: They send out promotional and informational emails about the GRFP as well as other job or internship opportunities.
3. Underrepresented fields/people are encouraged to apply: the social sciences are supported but not that many people apply! So, spread the word! The award has been revised to be more inclusive of nontraditional graduate students too, such as those who have been in the military/peace corps, or had to take time off school to work in order to provide for a family for example.
4. If you get honorable mention, don't get discouraged, they offer ~50 awards each year to the honorable mentions after offers are sent out and declinations sent back.
5. On average, ~800 applications are returned without review because of missing reference letters, not meeting page requirements, etc. You definitely don't want to be one of those!
6. NSF treats the intellectual merit and broader impacts as the most important aspects of the proposal, and equally important. Don't treat them as an afterthought.
7. Remember: You don't necessarily have to research exactly what you propose. If you decide to attend a different program than the one you talk about in your essays, or study in a different field, they have simple procedures for that.
8. In your personal statement, talk about what you have had to overcome to get to where you are today; what makes you different/stand out?
9. Contact a previous GRFP winner in your field by email to ask about their experience!
10. Hey faculty members! Want one of your graduate students to win a GRFP? Serve on a review panel! The best way to know a good application from a not-so-good one, is to read a whole bunch of them, right? :)
Essay Examples
If you would like to share your essays here, either with your name attached or anonymously, please send them to mallory.ladd(at)gmail(dot)com with the following information:
The field you applied to
The topic of your research statement
The year you applied
What year in school you were when you applied (undergrad, post-bac, grad, etc)
PDFs of your two essays and reviewer feedback if you'd like to share that as well
If you have a website or blog of your own you'd like me to link to, please include that too! :)
The field you applied to
The topic of your research statement
The year you applied
What year in school you were when you applied (undergrad, post-bac, grad, etc)
PDFs of your two essays and reviewer feedback if you'd like to share that as well
If you have a website or blog of your own you'd like me to link to, please include that too! :)
|
Ecology - Dave Klinges (2019)
Topic: The role of microclimate in shaping tropic forest diversity, and how agricultural land use impacts thermal connectivity across a landscape Written as a post-baccalaureate (Funded) Personal Statement Research Statement Reviewer Feedback Dave's Advice Life Sciences, Biology - Dylan Gomes (2018) Topic: Passive listening, active sensing, and echolocation in bats Written as a graduate student (Funded) Essays here Systematics and Biodiversity - Kyle David (2018) Topic: Origins of Bilaterian Development Written as second year graduate student (Funded) Personal Statement Research Statement Physics & Astronomy - Brandon Barker (2018) Topic: Astronomy and astrophysics Written as a senior undergraduate (Funded) Personal Statement Research Statement Reviewer Feedback Life sciences, Neuroscience - James R. Howe (2018) Topic: Genetic understanding of innate aversive responses to stereotyped odors Written as a second-year graduate student (Funded) Essays and website here Geoscience, Atmospheric Chemistry - Krystal Vasquez (2017) Topic: Isoprene chemistry by GC-HR-TOF analysis Written as a second-year graduate student (Funded) Essays and her own advice here Security and Sociology (Interdisciplinary) - Elissa Redmiles (2017) Topic: Individual security behavior Written as a second-year graduate student (Funded) Essays here Life Sciences, Evolutionary Biology - Jenna Pruett (2017) Topic: Maternal effects on genetics in painted turtles Written as a first-year graduate student (Funded) Personal Statement Research Statement Life Sciences, Biochemistry - Tyler Couch (2017) Topic: Mechanisms behind selective gene silencing, cell type specification and differentiation (Funded) Personal Statement Research Statement Reviewer Feedback Chemistry - Anonymous (2017) Topic: Tissue engineering, electrochemistry, cardiac mechanisms Written as an undergraduate senior (Funded) Personal Statement Research Statement Life Sciences, Physiology - Lillian Horin (2017) Topic: Hormonal regulation in elephant seal pups Written as an undergraduate senior (Funded) Essays here |
Geosciences, Geomorphology - Kelly Kochanski (2016)
Topic: Glaciology, geometry & evolution of aeolian snow bedforms Written as a second-year graduate student (Award Offered) Personal Statement Research Statement Reviewer Feedback Astrophysics - Carl Fields (2016) Topic: Stellar structure of massive stars and core collapse supernovae explosion mechanisms Written as an undergraduate senior (Funded) Essays here Neuroscience - Christian Cazeres (2016) Topic: Endogenous opioid system and its role in stress-induced cognitive impairments Written as a post-baccalaureate (Funded) Essays here Meteorology, Communication, and Psychology (Interdisciplinary) - Castle Williams (2015) Written as a first-year Masters student (Funded) Personal Statement Research Statement Castle's Advice Chemical Engineering - Anonymous (2015) Topic: Degradation and regeneration of aminosilica adsorbents in CO2 capture Written as a senior undergraduate student (Funded) Personal Statement Research Statement Reviewer Feedback Psychology - Anonymous (2015) Topic: Implementation and dissemination of Bayesian bias mitigation methods Written as a post-baccalaureate (Funded) Personal Statement Research Statement Reviewer Feedback Genetics - Anonymous (2015) Topic: Plant breeding and genetics, systems biology, and metabolic models for improved genotype-phenotype mapping Written as a post-baccalaureate (Funded) Personal Statement Research Statement Psychology - Nicholas Coles (2015) Topic: Core effect structure, facial expressions, and emotion Written as a first year graduate student (Funded) Personal Statement Research Statement Life Sciences - Katie Wedemeyer-Strombel (2014) Written as a second-year graduate student (Funded) Personal Statement Research Statement Reviewer Feedback Website Twitter: @krwedemeyer A note from Katie: The GRFP funds YOU! Chemistry - Anonymous (2014) Topic: Porous, breathing MOF's for CO2 capture Written as a first year graduate student (Funded) Personal Statement Research Statement Biogeochemistry - Mallory Ladd (2014) Topic: Organic matter-mineral interactions in permafrost soils Written as a first year graduate student (Funded) Personal Statement Research Statement Reviewer Feedback |
|
OLD FORMAT
Ecology -Asia Murphy (2012) Topic: Bobcat and coyote interactions Written as a senior undergraduate (Funded) Essays and reviewer feedback here Biophysics - Kemper Talley (2012) Topic: Investigate protein folding and interactions using electrostatics Written as a senior undergraduate student (Funded) Personal Statement Previous Research Experience Proposed Plan of Research |
Interdisciplinary (50% Chemistry, 50% Geosciences) - Mallory Ladd (2013) Topic: Reactive iodine and Arctic ozone depletion events Written as a senior undergraduate student (Honorable Mention) Personal Statement Previous Research Statement Proposed Plan of Research Reviewer Feedback |
Annual Activities Report Examples
My Annual Activities Report Example
Alistair Boettinger's Examples
Daniel Himmelstein's Examples
Blog Post by Alice Pawley: What to write in your annual NSF activity report?
Alistair Boettinger's Examples
Daniel Himmelstein's Examples
Blog Post by Alice Pawley: What to write in your annual NSF activity report?
Additional Resources
The Graduate Mentor - Preparing your NSF Graduate Fellowship
General advice, link to a helpful 'self-scoring rubric', and some sample essays (includes reviewer comments)
A Guide to NSF Success
AAAS publication with general advice when applying to NSF, list of common mistakes
GRFP Essay Insights from Robin G. Walker
U Missouri website with lots of great information and advice
Advice from former review panel members
History of program, some statistics and trends, description of intellectual merit and broader impacts
Jennifer Wang - Assistant professor at Fairhaven College (PhD at University of Washington)
Great list of more sites to visit for advice and samples
Rachel C. Smith - Awardee from UC Berkeley
Example essays from multiple fields
Michael Kiparsky - Awardee from UC Berkeley
General advice and list of other possible fellowships to apply to
Jean Fan - Awardee and PhD candidate at Harvard University
Background on program, list of other fellowship programs, sample essays, great blog on her research too
Alex Lang - Awardee and former PhD candidate at Boston University
Outline of program, tips for getting started, links to more advice, the most comprehensive list of sample essays I've found online to date
Philip Guo - Assistant professor at University of Rochester
Detailed description of program, advice for GRFP, NDSEG, and Hertz fellowships (also check out his memoir, The Ph.D. Grind)
Claire M.Bowen - Awardee and PhD candidate at Notre Dame
Lots of great advice about writing, with examples of what not to do too
The Graduate Mentor - Preparing your NSF Graduate Fellowship
General advice, link to a helpful 'self-scoring rubric', and some sample essays (includes reviewer comments)
A Guide to NSF Success
AAAS publication with general advice when applying to NSF, list of common mistakes
GRFP Essay Insights from Robin G. Walker
U Missouri website with lots of great information and advice
Advice from former review panel members
History of program, some statistics and trends, description of intellectual merit and broader impacts
Jennifer Wang - Assistant professor at Fairhaven College (PhD at University of Washington)
Great list of more sites to visit for advice and samples
Rachel C. Smith - Awardee from UC Berkeley
Example essays from multiple fields
Michael Kiparsky - Awardee from UC Berkeley
General advice and list of other possible fellowships to apply to
Jean Fan - Awardee and PhD candidate at Harvard University
Background on program, list of other fellowship programs, sample essays, great blog on her research too
Alex Lang - Awardee and former PhD candidate at Boston University
Outline of program, tips for getting started, links to more advice, the most comprehensive list of sample essays I've found online to date
Philip Guo - Assistant professor at University of Rochester
Detailed description of program, advice for GRFP, NDSEG, and Hertz fellowships (also check out his memoir, The Ph.D. Grind)
Claire M.Bowen - Awardee and PhD candidate at Notre Dame
Lots of great advice about writing, with examples of what not to do too
Proudly powered by Weebly