Read on Twitter
While we're talking about @NSFGRFP, I want to talk about a policy of this fellowship that perpetuates this inequity where a disproportionate amount of awards go to Ivy+ schools: rejection without review. (1/19) https://twitter.com/jt_pea/status/1288135256982396933
I first applied for the @NSFGRFP as a college senior at @WPI. As anyone who has applied to this fellowship knows, it requires an immense amount of effort. One small part of this effort is reading and re-reading the program solicitation. (2/19)
This document is long and dense, and I read it many times to make sure that I was following all the directions. (3/19) https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2020/nsf20587/nsf20587.htm
I paid particular attention to this section, which, in essence, says that research focused on improving human health is not eligible. I found this a little vague, so I called @NSFGRFP to ask some followup questions. They would not answer any. (4/19)
So I wrote my essays with the info I had available to me. My research proposal focused on the mechanisms by which H. pylori develops drug resistance. I was careful to emphasize that the project was not about diagnosis or treatment, but unraveling the underlying biology. (5/19)
A few months later, I received this email. (6/19)
I knew my chances of getting the GRFP were low. But to be rejected without my application even being reviewed, after all the effort I had poured into it, was pretty heartbreaking. At least if it had been reviewed, I would be able to learn from my reviewer's comments. (7/19)
I could appeal the rejection, and I did. I re-read the solicitation, and in my appeal letter broke down each line of the eligibility requirements and detailed how I met those requirements.
Maybe it was a mistake. Maybe my app had not been looked at very closely. (8/19)
Maybe it was a mistake. Maybe my app had not been looked at very closely. (8/19)
This was their reply. (9/19)
I wrote back, demanding some sort of explanation that was longer than 5 words. I never got a response. (10/19)
Now, some of you reading this may say, "Well yeah, you mentioned drug resistance. That's something the NIH might fund, so the NSF has no interest." And indeed, when I started grad school at @DukeU and was preparing myself to reapply, that is what a few professors told me. (11/19)
But how was I to understand these politics? I 100% followed the program solicitation to the letter, and they deemed me ineligible with no real explanation. If you Google "NSF GRFP rejected without review", you will find many people who have had the same experience. (12/19)
So when I read that, year after year, Ivy+ schools have a disproportionate number of awardees, I know it's not because the students there are inherently more talented; it's because they have access to a network of NSF-funded professors who know how to play the game. (13/19)
I know this to be true because I have lived it. When received the GRFP, my proposal was about the human gut microbiome. Is that really less related to human health than understanding how H. pylori regulates efflux pumps? No, I just had a PI who knew how I should pitch it. (14/19)
How can we fix this? IMO, transparency. @NSFGRFP, actually lay out your exact criteria for rejecting without review. You should be striving towards zero such rejections. It's a waste of everyone's time. (15/19)
Also, remember that the mission is supposed to be to fund the student, not the project. So maybe just chill out a little about the gray areas between pure basic science and translational research if someone is clearly pursuing a basic science PhD? (16/19)
More broadly, this is only one factor, and the issue of Ivy+ schools receiving a disproportionate number of awards needs to be systematically addressed. Again, this should be done in a transparent way. What are the numbers? What steps are you taking to fix it? (17/19)
This is also why the vagueness around the new "focus areas" in @NSFGRFP, and the refusal to directly answer basic questions about them, frustrates but does not surprise me. (18/19)
TL;DR
1. @NSFGRFP has a history of rejecting people without review even if they follow the directions to the letter.
2. NSF-funded PIs know the secret rules, but students at non-R1s may not have access to such networks.
3. We need more transparency.
4. Jeff still salty.
(19/19)
1. @NSFGRFP has a history of rejecting people without review even if they follow the directions to the letter.
2. NSF-funded PIs know the secret rules, but students at non-R1s may not have access to such networks.
3. We need more transparency.
4. Jeff still salty.
(19/19)
