The National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) funds 3 years of tuition and stipend for US citizen and permanent resident graduate students. It also opens opportunities to other NSF programs such as the Graduate Research Internship Program and Graduate Research Opportunities Worldwide program (both exclusive to GRFP recipients). The NSF GRFP requires a short application with a 2 page research proposal and 3 page personal statement. This post provides advice on writing your proposal from 33 successful applicants! Like all NSF proposals, GRFPs are judged on two categories: Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts. Intellectual Merit covers the scientific details of the proposal-- is it an important science question? Is it feasible? Do you have clear and testable hypotheses? Broader Impacts can cover a whole realm of deliverables but it is about how the proposal will interact with community (be it scientific or general public). Do you have a plan to disseminate results? Does the project involve supporting underrepresented minority students? Do you educate the general public about important problems like global warming? These criteria are supposed to be evaluated equally so don't skimp on your Broader Impacts! If you need some inspiration, check out our Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and Justice Issues in Geoscience Library. Application instructions for the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship program can be found here. That page is your best friend.
Below you can find application advice from 33 awardees in topics including: Letters of Recommendation, Intellectual Merit, Broader Impacts and more. We also include 3 complete reviewer comments and rankings on winning proposals so you can see what the reviewers are thinking about as they read your application.
Between 2005-2021, 1492 NSF Graduate Research Fellowship and 1564 Honorable Mention awards were made in Geoscience across 28 disciplines*. Here is an overview of historical awards in Geoscience:
Geoscience NSF GRFP Fellowship and Honorable Mention awards between 2005-2021.
Geoscience NSF GRFP Fellowships by discipline between 2005-2021.
We surveyed 33 geoscience graduate students awarded the NSF GRFP fellowship or honorable mention between 2010-present. They provide candid advice about the application process. 100% of respondents say it is worth the time and effort to apply! If you are an awardee and wish to be added to the survey, email us. Applicants, if you have questions for the panel submit in the comments section below!
Here is some demographic and application prep info from the panel:
Application preparation advice from the panel:
“Start on your application as early as possible, find people willing to share their successful application with you as an example, work with an advisor that wants to help you with the application”
“Start early and try to keep your advisor/mentor involved! I think that my chances for success would have increased if my advisor had been more engaged in the application process and was willing to provide more guidance. He took the approach that this application is supposed to reflect 100% student effort without mentor guidance, which was admirable, but does not reflect the way the program works in most instances.”
“Don't be afraid to ask for help with the proposal. Working with someone who has experience writing grant proposals is key to winning in my opinion. They know more about what it should look like and will identify things you would not know to look for.”
“Don't get too lost in the weeds with specific details about the science that only specialists would understand.”
“Have multiple reviewers, including advisors/professors, but also your student peers.”
“Have someone else who doesn't know your research but is in a science field read your proposal to make sure it is clear what you are proposing to accomplish to the reviewers reading your application.”
“I've been told that the best proposals are so clear that when a reviewer has to go to the evaluation form that asks for evidence of broader impacts and intellectual merit, they should literally copy and paste from the proposal. So use lots of headings and break out ideas.”
“Don't feel compelled to fill all 3 pages for personal statement (I didn't). It's about having a message, not filling space.”
“Make sure your project is feasible. You are not expected to carry every component of your project out as there will inevitably be roadblocks and detours. Don't be a cookie cutter applicant! Read other people's proposals and learn from their strengths and weaknesses.”
“My first round application got honorable mention and my second round got the award; the only difference in the two applications was that I included "preliminary results" after my first year as a grad student. This made a difference, clearly!”
“Be clear, concise, and explicit in your application materials. Sometimes this means using italicized or bold text to draw the evaluator to important parts of your app, e.g. the broader impacts part of your personal statement.”
“I went through 2-3 drafts of each statement over a 6-8 week period. I probably spent 2 days on each statement, then attended a peer review/writing workshop and then edited them.”
“Start writing as soon as possible, and don't be afraid to just put down words! Your mentor should help you polish and refine the proposal, but beginning is the trickiest part. And don't worry about having the perfect project/ the project you'll finish for graduate school: your research area might change, and that's fine! This proposal is about showing who you are as a scientist, and your ability to think through a project.”
“Your proposals [research and personal statements] may be separate documents, but they should be cohesive. You are presenting a single individual, so the research proposal should represent your research goals and the personal proposal should help the reviewer understand your personal motivation behind those goals. While the broader impacts section is written separately from the research plan, they should intertwine, and the personal statement should help the reviewer understand your motivation for your broader impacts. Your personal statement can be a narrative of your life if you want it to be, but doesn't have to be if it doesn't help the reviewer understand your motivation.”
“Be prepared to spend months developing an excellent written proposal and personal statement…Remember, the GRFP differs from the typical NSF proposal in that the funding is supporting the STUDENT, not the RESEARCH. Sell yourself! Instead of "what is/are the Intellectual merit/broader impacts of my proposed research" it's "how have my previous experiences contributed to my intellectual merit, how will the GRFP support my scientific successes, and what broader impacts will the GRFP allow me to have on my scientific community"
“Talk to your advisor about your proposal ideas.”
“…in terms of the application itself, remember that you DO NOT have to do what you propose; so play the game a little bit! Think about what the NSF panel wants to see and write for that. Am I going to fly around the world doing awesome science? Sounds cool, but probably not. Did I write about doing that? Yes.”
“Don't be afraid to put words on the paper, no matter how unrefined it may sound. Your first draft won't be your last, and give yourself plenty of time to revise!”
“Keep moving forward, and be persistent. You deserve this opportunity as much as anyone else, so don’t let go of it!”
“They are funding you and not your project. Write about an already fleshed out project that you will be working on. Just focus on your part of the project.”
“State the problem early (and because it's poorly understood won't cut it). Focus on your own work. Yes you'll need some background, but with only two pages, the focus must be on what you'll do and why it's important.”
“Although many consider getting the GRFP luck, I would say its 90% hard work/putting yourself out there and 10% luck. You can't get lucky without putting in time and effort into an application.”
“My reviewers commented on how I had lots of pertinent previous experience for my project, I was clearly passionate, and that I was able to frame my project in the broader context. My project was not so easy to pitch as immediately impacting our world, so I suggest you take time to think about how your research, even if not immediately useful, could have larger impacts.”
example applications and peer-review advice from the panel:
Most survey respondents recommend finding examples of successful proposals and having several people review your application documents. Here is a resource with lots of example successful GRFP application, you can search by field of study.
“Get feedback for several drafts - the more the better.”
“Ask as many people as possible to look at your application materials. Sometimes you’ve looked at something too many times to catch a mistake or omission. Sometimes you may think an activity you did is not worth including, and it takes an outside perspective to help you understand how it fits into your application.”
“Get it into as many hands as you can and carefully consider every comment offered.”
“Read other awardee's application materials and start early. “
“Seek advice. This is, of course, your own writing and work, but get as many opinions as possible as you work through it. I had a cool research idea and received lots of helpful tips from lots of people, which ultimately got me here.”
“Start early! And talk to others who have received the award”
“Don't be shy to ask other students in your lab if they read your drafts even if you're not that close with them, PhD students know how tough this process is and are willing to help!”
“Have someone else who doesn't know your research but is in a science field read your proposal to make sure it is clear what you are proposing to accomplish to the reviewers reading your application.”
“Get as many eyes on your proposal as possible! Get lots of feedback from diverse audiences, even those outside of STEM. This will help you write for a broader audience.”
“Have multiple reviewers, including advisors/professors, but also your peer students. Give your letter writers plenty of time to write their letter. Inform them early of your intention, send them an outline of your proposal, your resume/CV, and other information about your record. This information will help them craft a strong letter.”
“Don't be afraid to ask for help with the proposal. Working with someone who has experience writing grant proposals is key to winning in my opinion. They know more about what it should look like and will identify things you would not know to look for.”
“…find people willing to share their successful application with you as an example”
“I advise, like I did, send it to anyone who knows your subject and will look over it for you. Having as many people give their opinion can be really helpful and is also a valuable way to learn how to network and Crete a community while building your application.”
“…ask for those proof-reads and external feedback on your Research/Personal Statement drafts!”
LETTERS OF REFERENCE
“Give your letter writers plenty of time to write their letter. Inform them early of your intention, send them an outline of your proposal, your resume/CV, and other information about your record. This information will help them craft a strong letter.”
“Reach out to letter writers as soon as you have the slightest thought of applying. Way too much notice is better than having your application thrown out because someone was out on field work.”
“Start early! Share your entire app packet with your letter writers--they will appreciate it and your letters will likely be better for it.”
“Be wise in selecting your letter writers. Make sure you pick people who can really say something about your ability as an independent scientist/thinker.”
“Make it easy on your letter writers, give them LOTS of time, your completed application documents well in advance (they may even provide you with edits and suggestions), and your updated CV. If this sounds like a lot of upfront work, well it is. You can and should contact your writers well in advance of completing your application documents with a short blurb on your project idea to request they write you a letter.”
“Depending on your timeline & relationships, your letter writers may be able to provide valuable feedback on your project design and/or application materials. [ I sent my entire application packet to my letter writers (my undergraduate research advisor and a trusted undergraduate professor) about a month before the application deadline, and they shared a number of ideas & suggestions that I was able to incorporate into my final drafts. My reviewers later complemented the clear writing & organization of my application documents, which had been significantly improved by my references' suggestions].”
Advice from the Panel on your Personal statement:
“My advice is to balance ‘fluff’ writing with ‘scientific’ writing. In science we are cryptic and to the point, which is important and valuable. However, in the GRFP you are communicating why you are dedicating so much time in education to pursue the topic you love. It is important to display that passion--even if sparingly. My advisor suggested I remove my ‘fluff’ writing describing why I chose my research topic. I made the decision to keep it in my personal statement, because it was showing who I was as a scientist. My reviewers ultimately commented this is one of the qualities that impressed them most about my application. So I suggest the goldilocks method--a nice balance of fluff and scientific writing. Note: I suggest fluff writing only in the personal statement.”
“Be very genuine in the personal statement because this grant awards the person more so than the science."
“…remember that this award is to fund YOU, not just the project idea. Really sell yourself on why you deserve this award as a person (and yes, you deserve it)! How will you make waves in your field with your research, your broader impacts, etc?”
“I would also encourage you to write about personal things. Do not be afraid to open up about your personal life and your struggles in the personal statement. This is something I struggled with, but I am glad I opened up about my military history because I think it added depth to the statement and clarified my motivations for research.”
“Don't feel compelled to fill all 3 pages for personal statement (I didn't). It's about having a message, not filling space.”
“I also had to come to terms with my story (to be able to share it), and resolve myself on the idea of telling my story for money).”
“I also got positive [reviewer] comments on how my personal statement connected with the broader impacts and research in the research proposal. You should be presenting a consistent narrative in each proposal piece.”
“Focus the same, if not more, attention on your Personal Statement. Telling your story can feel quite overwhelming at times, especially for folks from historically excluded groups, but consider where you’ve been, where you are, and where you want to be. When you are willing to share this, folks want to help you get where you want to be!”
“Use your story and who you are to guide the narrative of the personal statement.”
Advice from the Panel on Broader Impacts:
“I would also encourage you to write about personal things. Do not be afraid to open up about your personal life and your struggles in the personal statement. This is something I struggled with, but I am glad I opened up about my military history because I think it added depth to the statement and clarified my motivations for research. Your broader impacts will be stronger if you tie them to your personal experiences because it makes it seem like you are actually serious about them, and not just tacking on the "broader impacts" like it's a trend in proposals. Really mean it and follow through with it. The more realistic your goals are, the more likely you are to be fund-able.”
“For Broader Impacts (BI), you do not need to reinvent the wheel. Find ways to plug in to existing BI programs at your institution, and find something that resonates with you. Your writing will be more convincing as a result, and completing that aspect of the project won't feel like a chore.”
“Don't be lazy with broader impacts--do your homework on resources available at the institution you are proposing to do the work at, or in the local community you are going to be working in geographically, or related to your specific area of research/sub-discipline."
“Reviewers all commented on the strength of my broader impacts section”
“… do not take the Broader Impacts section for granted. Think about how you will improve the status quo of education and how you will do it in a timely manner. Be able to communicate how your research will help the scientific community and greater.”
“…the broader impacts are just as important as intellectual merit. But don’t let that stop you from applying. I applied thinking my application was lacking in BI, but my mentors and friends helped me see that many things I had done throughout college actually demonstrated a pattern of commitment to multiple BI goals.”
“Really think about the broader impacts, that can make-or-brake your application.”
“…do not take the Broader Impacts section for granted. Think about how you will improve the status quo of education and how you will do it in a timely manner.”
“Your broader impacts will be stronger if you tie them to your personal experiences because it makes it seem like you are actually serious about them, and not just tacking on the "broader impacts" like it's a trend in proposals. Really mean it and follow through with it. The more realistic your goals are, the more likely you are to be fundable.”
“Try to tie in your broader impacts to the proposal itself. For example, if you're studying climate change in the Andes, and want to lead workshops on seismic hazards in Canada, those two ideas feel inconsistent and as a result they come of as intractable.”
“Most of my [reviewer] comments pertained to the feasibility of the research plan and how specific I was with the research and the broader impacts section. It is important to connect the research with your proposed broader impacts section because they are not separate entities.”
“In broader impacts, I connected research to outreach on a global scale.”
“Broader Impacts are also incredibly important; provide tangible examples!”
ADVICE FROM THE PANEL ON INTELLECTUAL MERIT:
“State the problem early (and “because it's poorly understood” won't cut it).”
“Focus on your own work. Yes you'll need some background, but with only two pages, the focus must be on what you'll do and why it's important.”
“Be explicit about your scientific questions and hypotheses. For example: “This work is motivated by the following questions” or “I propose to test the following hypotheses" bold these statements so it is easy for the reviewer to find. Make sure you explain how your methods address your hypotheses/questions.”
“Open with how your proposal impacts the broader field of science and/or society and then zoom into the local/regional problems your project addresses. Just because something is unknown or undocumented doesn’t mean its worth knowing or documenting, you have to convince the editors WHY the problem/question/hypothesis is important and needs to be worked on now and by you.”
“Clearly state the project goal, which should center around a transportable scientific problem. Reviewers universally appreciate clearly defined hypotheses & proposed data collection that allows for testing those hypotheses. A figure can be worth a thousand words, especially when you only have two pages to motivate & outline your proposed research.”
“You need to sell yourself AND your project. Make sure intellectual merit is demonstrated both in your personal statement (eg. talk about the conferences you've attended, classes you've taken, or papers you've published) as well as your proposal (eg. elaborate on how the results of your work will be used to inform and don't forget to cite the bigwigs in your respective field that are relevant to your research).”
“Minimize jargon. Frame the science questions/problems such that after reading, a reviewer thinks ‘oh wow, we gotta fund this thing NOW.’ The importance of it must be obvious to any scientifically literate reviewer, not just a specialist in your field/discipline. It has to grab the reviewer.”
“Something the reviewers really liked was that I connected my work to established theory in my field in my intellectual.”
“Reviewers most appreciated that the project goals were clearly stated, and that my Research Proposal defined clear hypotheses that could be discriminated using proposed methods. All noted the "clear," "well-organized" writing.”
Advice from the Panel on applying as an undergraduate student:
“I was really glad that I applied as an undergraduate applicant because that way I could apply again in grad school (but I got it the first time!). I think even if I hadn't gotten it, going through the process helped me hone my grad school applications and my academic interests. I then entered grad school 1) with independent funding! and 2) with an idea of some of the ways in which NSF works, which has made me more comfortable participating in proposal writing with my advisor.”
“I strongly encourage undergraduates to apply! It is a big opportunity and can also be viewed as a 'practice run' since this is the only way you get to apply twice!”
“If you are an undergraduate applicant, I strongly suggest proposing to do your work at a specific institution--remember, you don't have to go there or do the project (I did not and am not!) but it makes it clear that you know what resources (people and infrastructure) you will need and how to find them... If you get it as an undergrad, don't be afraid to use it to bargain financial offers with!”
“I think the most important advice I got on the proposal, most applicable to undergrads who may not know what their next year will look like, is to write a good proposal that builds of your current work rather than trying to create a new idea you are less comfortable with. This does not mean just write about your research, but rather write about what a five year long funded project could do with the ideas you have been researching. I also chose to cite a couple of my papers in the proposal to highlight their relevance. Additionally, ask professors and graduate students about your universities existing programs for outreach and STEM education to help put together the broader impacts section. If you know a PI on an NSF grant they likely will be doing something along those lines already that you can reference in your proposal.”
“One reviewer mentioned that my application would have been stronger if I had identified a graduate institution (I applied as an undergrad).”
“As an undergrad or gap year student, there are no downsides. If you get it that’s great and if you don’t you’ve gotten a head start on developing an idea for graduate school. For me, writing my GRFP proposal helped me understand what I was really most interested in both scientifically and in terms of broader impacts. This helped me identify graduate programs to apply to. When sharing my GRFP ideas with potential graduate advisors during the grad school application process, I got great feedback and was able to develop a relationship with them. That helped my graduate applications significantly.”"
“It made me a more competitive applicant for grad school, and it was a great way to talk to potential advisors while applying. I haven't actually started yet, but so far it's been a great experience.”
Was it worth the time and effort?! Responses from the Panel:
“It was definitely worth the effort. I did not think I would win this time and mostly treated this application as a practice attempt. I decided before I won not to go to the school for the research project I applied for, but I think I was successful because I worked closely with a potential advisor on the project. I did not think it was going to be possible for me to get a PhD and this award makes it possible, so it is likely I will be switching my Ms to a PhD next year.”
“Proposal writing is a skill that requires practice. Even if you are unsuccessful, and earnest attempt is a good learning experience. If you are successful, then the funding is unparalleled”
“Less financial stress means more time to allocate toward research and maintaining mental health”
“It not only helps you to refine your research project, but also gets you used to writing for a deadline, undergoing peer review, and working with that feedback! I believe it gave me a good head start on my thesis work, especially when having to describe it succinctly in a way that could be understood by scientists outside of my specific field. Also, that money will definitely come in handy and can open up opportunities for you at different schools!”
“NSF GRFP is a low risk high reward proposal that forces you to distill your scientific problems, hypothesis, and research plan right at the get go of your grad career.”
“Even if you do not get the award it is still valuable to outline a PhD project early on in your graduate school career.”
“Even if your application is not successful, writing a GRFP requires you to think about your project and communicate its purpose in 2 pages. All scientists should practice doing this for each of their projects. Communicating science is incredibly important and writing a GRFP forces you to be concise and compelling about it.”
“It depends on your motivation. Preparing the proposal will make you a better writer and a better scientist. If that sounds good to you, apply.”
“… I think you should apply even if you think you have no shot. Most of us are unable to see ourselves through the eyes of others, especially with imposter syndrome, and because of that we are really bad at estimating our chances of being awarded this fellowship. You’ll never know if you don’t go for it!”
“You have nothing to lose by applying and a whole lot to gain! Good luck!”
“Looks great on your CV, feels even better to win it after spending so much time working on it, and it really gives a sense of financial stability so you can do your research without having to TA.”
“…strong line on CV which demonstrates you can generate funding, I believe it helped me with getting other grants.”
“…not only has the funding been extremely helpful to being able to complete by PhD, but the proposal writing process also helped me better identify my own research interests and gave me practice for future proposals.”
“…it is great practice for grant writing, and the funding can be life-changing for your academic career plans.”
“Being awarded this fellowship allowed me to attend the grad school/work with the advisor who I wanted to! Even if I hadn’t been awarded, the reviews were helpful and writing a proposal is a great skill to have!”
“Financially, the award helped boost my yearly stipend to make help lower stress living in a high cost of living city. Perhaps more importantly, working through the process of writing my NSF application gave me a head start on writing personal for applications a couple months later. Given how long the personal statement for NSF is there is always at least something you can incorporate into applications down the line.”
DEALING WITH THE OUTCOME Responses from the Panel:
We wanted to know if applicants think it would be worth it to apply if they didn’t receive an award, here is what they said:
“Even if I hadn't received the award it would have been worth it. Writing a GRFP was such a big motivation for me to get familiar with my project, frame hypotheses, and start to learn about methods.”
“Even though there's a lot left up to luck (like the reviewers you may get), you still get a great experience learning how to communicate your research ideas succinctly and clearly.”
“If you are awarded this, remain humble, and learn from the reviewer comments. If you are rejected, don't take it personally, and grow from the comments.”
“Even though there's a lot left up to luck (like the reviewers you may get), you still get a great experience learning how to communicate your research ideas succinctly and clearly.”
“Even if you don’t win, the process of writing such an important grant is incredibly valuable.”
“Even if you do not receive an award, you can gain a lot from personal reflection during prep of your application. You get out what you put in.”
“If you don’t get it, it’s still an extremely useful exercise in grant writing that you can have early in your career and this have something to go off of for when the next thing comes.”
“You can also repurpose this application for other potential fellowships you're applying to, or rework it for your research publications later. It was rewarding to go through the process with this Fellowship as well as others, continuing to refine my own ideas with each iteration.”
“…even if you don't receive the award, you may receive meaningful reviewer comments. The GRFP application process also forces you to define research goals & hypotheses early in your graduate experience (& many of those ideas or hypotheses may feed directly into your qualifying proposal or forthcoming presentations/publications!)”
“I think even if I hadn't gotten it, going through the process helped me hone my grad school applications and my academic interests.”
“Even if your application is not successful, writing at GRFP requires you to think about your project and communicate its purpose in 2 pages. All scientists should practice doing this for each of their projects. Communicating science is incredibly important and writing a GRFP forces you to be concise and compelling about it.”
“Preparing the proposal will make you a better writer and a better scientist.”
“It forced me to understand my research when I started grad school and I used the writing to help with other grant applications.”
“Even if you do not get the award it is still valuable to outline a PhD project early on in your graduate school career.”
“NSF GRF is a low risk high reward proposal that forces you to distill your scientific problems, hypothesis, and research plan right at the get go of your grad career.”
“Proposal writing is a skill that requires practice. Even if you are unsuccessful, and earnest attempt is a good learning experience. If you are successful, then the funding is unparalleled”
“Even if I hadn't received the award it would have been worth it. Writing a GRFP was such a big motivation for me to get familiar with my project, frame hypotheses, and start to learn about methods.”
“My first round application got honorable mention and my second round got the award; the only difference in the two applications was that I included "preliminary results" after my first year as a grad student. This made a difference, clearly!”
“…the funding is really helpful but also even if you don’t get it you have materials to apply for other fellowships.”
“ALWAYS apply again if you do not receive an award on your first try.”
“Don't take the reviews personally. It's a crapshoot. The first time I applied the reviewers slammed me for a low GPA in undergrad and I didn't get honorable mention. The next year I submitted the exact same materials (no changes) and received a fellowship. In other words, it's often luck whether the reviewers like your application or not.”
PANEL PARTICIPANTS
82% of panel participants indicated they would be willing to share part or all of their proposal documents as an example for students applying to the NSF GRFP. You can contact some of them directly below. Please indicate what field of study (geoscience) and discipline (tectonics, sedimentology, etc.) you are applying to and provide some background information on yourself (prospective school & adviser, your academic career stage). Not all participants will be comfortable sharing their documents, especially if their awards were recent and their documents contain unpublished ideas and data.
Kristina L. Butler (@futurerockdoc), Sarah W.M. George, Nicholas Perez (@tectonick), Patricia J. Standring (@Patty_Stand), Lily Jackson, Chelsea Mackaman-Lofland, Scarlette Hsia, Emily E. Mixon (@emilyemixon)
EXAMPLE REVIEWS from the Panel:
Example Review 1
INTELLECTUAL MERIT
1. Excellent - The applicant has proposed to study the role partial melt plays in accommodating deformation, as well as the feedbacks between partial melting, deformation, and metamorphism. Based on the applicant's background completing several internships in the same area, receiving awards, and the applicant's enthusiasm, a high success rate with low risk is anticipated for this research. The only reservation that I have is that the proposed research may require fieldwork in which the applicant's current choice of graduate school (UW) may not be an optimum option. The applicant proposes visits to the grand canyon, so perhaps ASU could be a better choice.
2. Good - Strengths: Applicant has evidence for perseverance through difficult circumstances. Applicant also has had a lot of technical experience working in a well established geochronology laboratory. Weaknesses: There has been quite a lot of research into the relationship between partial melt and rock deformation, so the idea that little is known about the proposed topic is not a strong motivation. Also, it's not clear why Zoroaster Plutonic Complex is an ideal natural laboratory. The proposed approach is not particularly novel, but does have a high likelihood of success. A transformative nature of the proposed research is not apparent.Applicant does not have evidence of scholar work beyond undergraduate institution (e.g. external publications or conference presentations).
3. Excellent - This applicant has excellent academic performance as demonstrated by the academic records and multiple awards and achievements. The applicant has had extensive research experience as an undergraduate research assistant, which would result in publication with the previous academic advisor. The future research plan was very well laid out with knowledge gaps and research objectives. The applicant provided three testable hypotheses for understanding the role of partial melt in deformation, which is important for predicting and constraining collisional boundaries. The research topic is challenging and uses multidisciplinary approaches, e.g., field mapping, computational modeling, and mineral characterization, etc. The University of Washington and faculty support were identified by the applicant for the future graduate study. The institution and PI would be appropriate for providing the necessary resources for the success of the proposed research. The applicant has makes clear plans to further develop research program in the graduate school and future career. It is highly likely that the applicant would continue the pursuit in academic research and develop intellectually as a future scientist in graduate school.
BROADER IMPACTS
1. Excellent - The applicant has past experience in diversity and inclusion, where they raised the question of diversifying people rather than diversifying the research methods in a session organized by the Geochronology Division (GD). Later, the applicant was selected as a diversity coordinator for the Geological Society of America (GSA). In addition, every step of the application is written considering the diversity in an effort to make science and education more accessible and genuinely inclusive for geoscience.
2. Good - Strengths: Applicant is highly motivated to support underrepresented groups and has shown evidence for perseverance despite hardship. Diversity Coordinator w/ GSA Geochronology Division is notable and shows initiative. Weaknesses: There is a mismatch between the stated motivations for BI and the actual BI proposed during the graduate work. For example, it would be helpful to outline clearly how will K-12 outreach will also accomplish DEI goals.
3. Excellent - This applicant demonstrates perseverance and endurance to thrive academically despite challenges faced in academic life. The determination to support fellow students with similar socioeconomic backgrounds resonates with the personal experience of the applicant. The leadership experiences demonstrated by the applicant, including as a coordinator to promote diversity in GSA, is strong indication that the applicant would continue the effort in future graduate studies. The plan to make science and education more accessible by building support network initiatives to engage community is convincing and impressive. Together with the strong recommendations from all references, it is clear that the applicant is a well-rounded young scientist who has great potential to be successful in achieving broader impact in the field of Earth Science.
SUMMARY
1. The quality of the writing in this application is phenomenal for an undergraduate student. This is related to the applicant's background in English in college and their experience in writing. This is one of the most important traits for a future educator/researcher. The other notable aspect of this applicant is maintaining a high GPA despite the fact that the applicant had to work to afford the school.
2. Applicant has shown moderate success provided significant academic opportunities (i.e. access to world class facilities and mentors). Proposed work is interesting, but not particularly original, and transformative aspects are not clear (as per NSF criteria). BI motivation is compelling, but the path toward accomplishing BI goals during graduate career is not clear.
3. Collectively, the applicant has strong and competitive academic record and potential to succeed in graduate studies. The research plan is very well written and has broader scientific value. The applicant shines in leadership experience and determination to promote diversity and equity in science education. The application shapes the applicant as a well-rounded person who would thrive to become a future leader in the field of Earth Science.
One smaller concern I have is that the applicant is suggesting to continue their studies at the same University where they study for their undergraduate degree. I did not consider this in my rating, because I think the idea that people in research always need to be flexible and ready to drop everything to move across a country is exclusionary. On the other hand, I know from my own experience that the connections that are made during graduate research often lay the groundwork for future career success. I therefore want to advise the applicant to seek out opportunities with collaborators at other institutions, if possible including research/lab visits or internships as part of the projects.
Example Review 2
INTELLECTUAL MERIT
IM strengths and weaknesses: This application represents the most cohesive, cogently written programs of past and proposed work out of all of the proposals I reviewed this cycle. It's hard to come up with a reasonable criticism of the intellectual merit of the student's narrative and proposed work. It all flows together. One thing leads to another. This student has already accumulated strong skills in academic research and is clearly bound for success on an intriguing project. The only thing to add is that, although paleontology is not my forte, I am nonetheless keen to find out what this student finds as a result of their research.
The applicant has demonstrated excellent academic performance in undergraduate program, as shown by a high GPA. The level of involvement in research projects during the undergraduate program was relatively high, indicating the genuine desire to conduct research. The research work performance in undergraduate program on sinkholes was outstanding. The reference letters were very detailed and strong, providing evidence on the applicant's capability and desire to learn new skills and conduct research. I think the application would have been stronger if the applicant attempted to publish the results of the research work in a peer-reviewed conference or journal publication.
The applicant has an impressive academic record and has accumulated relevant research experience for the proposed project. The research project is sound, well described and well motivated. The applicant has access to adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities, which have a high chance of advancing knowledge within the field of paleontology.
BROADER IMPACTS
BI strengths and weaknesses: There is a clear passion here for mentorship and advancement of underrepresented groups in STEM. And it's not just lip service. There is a very strong, plausible connection enabled in part by the student's own origin story. Again, as with the intellectual merit, it is hard for me to find anything here to criticize. Everything flows together and most importantly is entirely consistent with the context of the work and past experience articulated by the student.
The applicant has demonstrated strong desire and commitment to outreach. The applicants commitment to the Houston Museum of Natural Science was simply outstanding. The applicant serves as a student volunteer in a high school and spent a significant number of hours there to help with lesson development and training other volunteers. The applicant is already part of the Geoscience Ambassadors program and I imagine the same commitment during the PhD study and beyond to outreach.
The applicant is well motivated and has extensive experience in outreach and mentoring. The application describes clear plans to implement outreach and mentoring activities. The research project itself, however, has only limited BI.
SUMMARY
In summary: Wow. This would be an excellent, highly compelling application worthy of the highest marks in any context. However, it's even more impressive when viewed in context, i.e., the student's origin story, which includes undergraduate education at a relatively small public school in Texas and a first-gen academic setting. This student has overcome what appear to be very substantial barriers to produce what in my mind is an outstanding application by any measure. I could not be more supportive of a GRFP award for this student.
Very strong minority applicant with great accomplishments. The research work is well described with listed hypothesis and methods for testing the hypothesis and will likely result in a good contribution to the literature. I suggest the applicant to consider concentrating on a project to publish the work in a peer-reviewed conference or journal paper.
The applicant has a very good curriculum and the potential to deliver high quality research. The application has clear intellectual merits, but it has only limited BI.
Example Review 3
INTELLECTUAL MERIT
Excellent - The applicant proposes a student to provide and analyze sediment routing and stratigraphic architecture in the Patagonian foreland basin. One possible improvement could be expansion of the data collected and developed 3D stratigraphic model for the suggested implications.
Excellent - The applicant’s research plan is well thought out with clear research goals. The applicant’s undergraduate experience and references support the potential success of the applicant.
Excellent - Very well written proposal speaks to the strong communication skills of the applicant with clear narrative structure, use of heading and use of text bolding. The applicant brings several unique aspects to the table: International upbringing in China, started her own restaurant business prior to being an undergraduate in geology, starting UG experience at 24 with much greater maturity and focus than typical freshman, and having an active UG research program plus two internships with petroleum companies, which is quite uncommon. In terms of the personal attributes of the applicant, the support letters from seasoned academics are glowing with support by example. All speak to her formidable skills as a field geologist and [as] a synthesizer of geological interpretations. One letter contained some concerns about the methodology in the research plan, but did not see this issue as fundamental and closed with very strong support for the applicant. The research plan is well articulated, establishing project significance, why the study area is an excellent opportunity for this research, clear research questions, and a natural lead-in with relationships to the research activities related to broader impacts.
BROADER IMPACTS
Very Good - The applicant is fully aware of the broader impacts of the project. Additionally, she has been a strong contributor to several initiatives such as GeoFORCE.
Excellent - The applicant lists clear and specific broader impacts to the proposed research. Letters of reference strongly support the applicant’s potential for success.
Excellent - The personal statement and research plan collectively present a well developed statement about activities related to broader impacts as compared to other applicants. The philosophy, goals, and activities for broader impacts in personal statement involve leveraging the GeoFORCE program at graduate institution for mentoring underrepresented students, developing web-based educational resources for sedimentology and professional advice for aspiring undergraduate geoscientists, serving as an undergraduate research mentor with clear professional development goals for the students, and an ambitious American-Argentinian collaboration to facilitate simultaneous geological training of undergraduate students from both countries. They effectively and briefly integrated into the subsequent narrative about the research plan.
SUMMARY
The project aims to study sediment routing and develop a 3D stratigraphic architecture in the Patagonian foreland basin. The applicant has clear statements about the research and with some expansion of analysis of data, the project could be successful. All recommendation letters strongly support the application and the student has a strong outreach experience and goal.
The entire application reflects the strong potential of the applicant. The research plan reflects an intellectual maturity with respect to other graduate students at the same level.
Top notch application from a person with unique life experiences who is leveraging them to create an integrated and valuable set of research plans and activities for broader impacts, as part of a personal journey toward becoming an outstanding geoscientist. As such she is well-suited for GRF support.
References
*not including awards that selected “other” as their discipline.
NSF GRFP Applicants page
UT-Austin students, see this Science Y’all post specific to UT-Austin GRFP award!