The National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) helps ensure the vitality of the human resource base of science and engineering in the United States and reinforces its diversity.  The program recognizes and supports outstanding graduate students in NSF-supported science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines who are pursuing research-based master’s and doctoral degrees in the U.S. and abroad.  The NSF welcomes applications from all qualified students and strongly encourages under-represented populations, including women, under-represented racial and ethnic minorities, and persons with disabilities, to apply for this fellowship.

In addition to the prestige accompanying the receipt of this fellowship, winners also receive the following:

• Three Years of Support
• $30K Annual Stipend
• $10.5K Cost-of-Education Allowance
• $1K One-Time International Travel Allowance
• TeraGrid Supercomputer Access

The applications first become available in August and are eventually due in early November (at least this was the schedule they followed in 2009-2010). The results were set to be announced in mid-March, though this year they were actually announced in mid-April (I heard that decisions were delayed due to the weather complications in D.C. this winter). According to the site, it looks as if they announced 2000 awardees and 2025 honorable mentions, which seems to be up a great deal from past years.

Why am I writing this post?

For a comprehensive look at applying for NSF (and other similar fellowships), you should check out Philip Guo’s Fellowships Tips page, which is really good and very comprehensive. I personally learn best by example, so my goal in this post is to provide a personal example of the application and review process; hopefully, this will prove helpful to some of you applying in the coming fall.  While I did not win this year, I think it’s helpful to see the essays of others with reviews to get a real sense of what the reviewers are looking for.

If you take one thing away from this post: BE SPECIFIC!

The number one lesson that I gleaned from various sources while applying was “Whatever you write about, BE SPECIFIC”. From my understanding, what you write about and whether or not you actually follow the proposal if you win are both secondary to how specific you can be in your proposal. I wish I could re-find this link now, but when I was applying, I remember reading the application of another student who had posted their application materials and reviews. This student wrote an incredibly detailed proposal for studying land use in Africa; they included specific information about the plots of land they were going to study, the local contacts that they had assembled, even information about satellites from which they were going to pull aerial photos. One of the reviews had a comment along the lines of “Would have appreciated more detail about the study – for instance, what type of analysis are you planning to do on the satellite imagery?” It seems that it is impossible for you to cram too many details into the space provided.

Brief Overview of Written Application Materials:

Essentially, aside from other (important) components such as recommendations, test scores, and the like, the application is comprised of three major written components (see the full list here). The Personal Statement is where you get to talk about your background, your strengths, why you are interested in your research areas, and how winning a fellowship will contribute to your long-term career goals. In the Research Experience Statement, your goal is to essentially discuss why you are qualified to do the work that you are proposing to do. Finally, in the Proposed Plan of Research Statement, you lay out the research question you intend to address, how you are going to answer it, and how that answer will contribute to science and society as a whole.

Throughout these three essays, there are basically two major principles you want to keep in mind:

• Intellectual Merit: How important and original is this research, and how qualified is the applicant to conduct it?
• Broader Impacts: How will this research contribute to science, society, education, underprivileged groups, etc.?

Anyways, with that in mind, here are links to PDF’s of my three statements: Personal Statement, Research Experience, and Proposed Research Plan. Below, I am posting the reviews that I received from my 2 reviewers:

Reviewer 1:

Overall Assessment of Intellectual Merit: Good

The application has a good personal statement and the applicant has a convincing motivation and past research experience background. Nevertheless, I found this application not as competitive because the proposed research application was not specific enough about what exactly it is all about. By the same token it was not stated where the research is. A stronger motivational statement for the proposed research could also strengthen the application.

Overall Assessment of Broader Impacts: Good

The proposed research has an obvious broader impact and benefit to society. Nevertheless, the broader impact statement of this application could be stronger by addressing it specifically and in more detail . Broader impact criteria can be impact on society, integration of research on education, the potential to reach diverse audiences and outreach.

Reviewer 2:

Overall Assessment of Intellectual Merit: Good

Sanjay Kairam has a strong academic record and good research experience. To his credit, he has published several articles in some top-rated conferences. His description of the proposed research is reasonable but I expect a better and more specific explanations of the research plan and methodology.

Overall Assessment of Broader Impacts: Very Good

His interest in social computing stem from his personal experience working in hospital in low income neighborhood. He participated in several activities to promote social computing. The proposed research will have a positive impact on better understanding of social issues.

Conclusions:

In summary, my major takeaway was that while the personal statement and research experience were good, they wanted more details in a few different aspects of my proposed research plan (motivation, methodology, impact).  I was a little puzzled by the phrase “it was not stated where the research is” because I, as is the case with many students, was applying concurrently to graduate schools, so I did not yet know where I would be.

If you are applying for graduate schools, I would advise applying for NSF or another similar fellowship for a number of reasons.  First off, you might get it.  Second, even if you don’t, putting together the application was an incredibly useful exercise towards getting my school applications together – a great portion of my personal and research experience statements found their way into my school application materials.

I hope that getting to see my application statements and the reviews that they earned will help you when you are applying.  If you’d like to know more about my experience applying, talk about your experience, or even have thoughts on what I wrote (hey, I am applying again this year), hit up the comments section. If you are reading this while putting together your application – good luck!

I technically graduated with my B.S. in Mathematics and an M.A. in Philosophy in 2006 (so I’m sort of an impostor in the Class of 2005 tent). In some ways the shift to Philosophy reflected my interests in logic and the principles of rational thought — much of my scientific interest at the time related to the differences between how people should think and how people really do think.  In other ways, the choice to do a Masters was motivated by my desire to hang around on campus for another year (though the prospect of another 5 years does seem a tad daunting right now!)

After realizing that degrees in Mathematics and Philosophy didn’t really qualify me to do anything other than win arguments, I started something of a first-world spirit quest; I wandered for a few years, working at a couple of big companies (fighting click-fraud at Google, learning about frequent-flier programs at Deloitte), and then freelancing with some smaller companies (writing, marketing, data analysis, and anything I could get my hands on). Along the way, I got to travel to some interesting places, as well.  This included partying under the full moon in Thailand, learning how to kite-surf in the Dominican Republic, zip-lining in Costa Rica, and trekking through one of the highest mountain passes in the world (Thorong-La) in Nepal.

Despite all of these great experiences, it took a bit of serendipity for me to finally end up on my current path. At a wedding for a former roommate in the Summer of 2008, I happened to sit next to the wife of someone I knew during my time at Stanford. We talked a bit about my interests, and she suggested that I talk with her sister, who turned out to be Brynn Evans. Despite my usual social anxiety, I got in touch with Brynn, and after talking about her research in social search, we hit it off. It was through Brynn that I joined the Augmented Social Cognition group at PARC; working with her and Peter Pirolli, we undertook a project looking at changes in question/problem formulation and domain understanding as a result of social interaction during search (PDF here). After finishing this project, I was lucky enough to get invited to stay on as a research assistant at PARC, where I got to work on a number of social computing research projects with the group and to develop my research interests and expertise.

It was this chance encounter at a wedding, a fortuitous seating arrangement, that led me on my current research path in 2 ways.  First, in bringing me to PARC, it gave me the opportunity to learn about and pursue research in social computing.  Also, by demonstrating to me first-hand the power of weak ties, it motivated me to study in depth how information/expertise/social captial are exchanged in social networks.

As I contemplate (re)-starting Stanford in the fall, I think back to the people who made this possible.  Obviously, I am appreciative of family and friends for their support, especially during the times when I was pretty lost.  I am especially thankful to Peter Pirolli, Ed Chi, Brynn, and all of the members of ASC for taking a big chance on an intern with little research experience in social computing but a great deal of interest. Thanks also to Michael Bernstein, who as one of my few close friends to bridge both my personal and academic life, has provided more than his fair share of advice.

I’m excited to start this new chapter in my life, and I’m just as curious as anyone to see where it will lead!