This year the National Science
Foundation (NSF) celebrates a half-century of awarding the Graduate Research
Fellowship (GRF). Through the years, the
criteria for these fellowships have undergone significant changes, primarily
through mandates from Congress.
Fine-tuning of the program literature has come through feedback to the
NSF from the panels of judges. But our
experience on the panel that judges the Physics and Astronomy (P/A)
applications leads us to think that the current criteria are not well
understood by many applicants and their mentors. It seems that some students who could be
highly competitive fail to apply in the belief that the traditional measures of
grades and Graduate Record Examination (GRE) scores are of overriding
importance. As a result,
these individuals miss a career-defining opportunity. A related concern is that, despite a talented
and increasing number of applicants, P/A’s share of awards is actually
declining.
For the past nine years, the Oak Ridge Associated Universities has
effectively administered the fellowship competition including the panel
process. The P/A judging panel is
comprised of 20-25 physicists and astronomers from a wide range of higher
education institutions. Each of us has
participated on the P/A panel in different ways: Daniel Boye has been a member
of this panel for the past 5 years and chair for the past two years. Shila Garg has been a panel member for the
past two years. Gerald Goldin held an
NSF-GRF as a graduate student during the 1960s, and served on the panel during
the early 1990s as well as for the past two years. After the 2002 panel meeting, all three of us
came away feeling a strong need to communicate some of our observations to the
P/A academic community.
We hope the information and advice in this article will encourage
some students who might not otherwise do so to apply for GRFs. And we hope it will aid candidates, and their
mentors, in effectively describing strengths with regard to the newer as well
as the more traditional judging criteria.
2. Overview of the NSF Graduate Research
Fellowship: Some Statistics and Trends
The GRF is awarded competitively to the nation's best and
brightest students to help support the early stages of their graduate
study. As stated in the program
description, NSF "seeks to ensure the vitality of the human resource base
of science, mathematics, and engineering in the
For the
2002 competition, there were a total of 376 applications in P/A, up 25% from
two years before. Of the total
applications in P/A, 233 were from students who were in the process of
completing a bachelor’s degree with plans to enter graduate school in the fall
of 2002. These 233 are roughly 9% of all
(US and foreign) students entering their first year of graduate school in P/A
in the United States, and around 15% of the entering students who meet the
eligibility requirements for a GRF. The
number of applicants from Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs) was 18%
of the P/A total, an increase from 12% from the previous year. Nearly half of all applicants intend to
enroll (or are currently enrolled for graduate study) in just seven
institutions (listed in Table 1). But
the number of applicants attending these universities at the time of
application was actually only 20% of the total.
Women comprised just 22% of the P/A applicants. The question of representation from ethnic
and racial minorities was an area of great concern to the panel. Since 1998, NSF has not held a separate competition
for Minority Graduate Fellowships, and we do not have the total count on
minority applicants. This year, however,
there were only three applicants in P/A from Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs) and one from a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI). We
doubt that the total number of minority applicants could have exceeded 5%.
|
Institution |
GRF Applicants in P/A |
|
|
35 |
|
Harvard |
29 |
|
Stanford |
28 |
|
Cornell |
25 |
|
|
23 |
|
CIT |
20 |
|
MIT |
19 |
Table 2
presents some data regarding the awards made by NSF over the past seven
years. Within the P/A panel there is a
nominal distinction made between the subfields of physics and
astrophysics/astronomy (denoted by Ast in Table 2). The P/A panel does not typically judge
applications in the subfields of biophysics and geophysics. There is a disappointing trend in these
data. The number of fellowship awards in
all disciplines has increased by nearly 18% during this period but the number
of P/A awards actually dropped by 13%. The percentage of all awards allotted to
P/A dropped significantly.
The total
number of awards for the program each year is directly determined by the
congressional budget for NSF. This year
there were 900 awards overall, with 46 of them in the P/A field. Representatives from NSF indicate that the
number of applicants in a field of specialization determines the number of
awards that are given to that field.
Engineering fields of study receive a somewhat higher proportion of
awards in relation to applicant numbers than do other fields. The Division of Graduate Education of NSF has
reported statistics for the GRF program for the past six years at the website
www.ehr.nsf.gov/dge/programs/grf/grfstat.asp.
The panel
in each discipline chooses a subset of applicants who will definitely receive
awards. A second subset, designated and
rank-ordered by the panel, will either receive awards or will be distinguished
with honorable mention. For this subset,
the panel’s ranking as well as the geographical and demographic distribution of
the entire applicant pool of the program plays a role in NSF’s final assignment
of awards.
|
Year |
Program Awards |
Physics Awards |
Ast Awards |
Phys/Ast Total Awards |
% Program Awards |
|
96 |
765 |
39 |
14 |
53 |
6.9 |
|
97 |
850 |
40 |
13 |
53 |
6.2 |
|
98 |
766 |
35 |
13 |
48 |
6.3 |
|
99 |
900 |
42 |
10 |
52 |
5.8 |
|
00 |
850 |
37 |
12 |
49 |
5.8 |
|
01 |
903 |
38 |
12 |
50 |
5.5 |
|
02 |
900 |
34 |
12 |
46 |
5.1 |
The
decrease in the number of P/A awards suggests that qualified students should be
more aggressively encouraged to apply.
Other fields of study have seen tremendous growth (greater than the 25%
shown by P/A) in the numbers of applications due to proactive strategies - some
research groups in other areas even require that all of their incoming graduate
students apply! We do not suggest or
encourage such extreme, undiscriminating tactics for obvious reasons of
educational responsibility and program integrity. However, we do think that P/A faculty should
be seriously engaged in finding and encouraging viable candidates for the GRF.
As noted,
women and minorities remain seriously underrepresented in our field. It is well known that women’s representation
in physics decreases with each step up the academic ladder and that physics is
not attracting from the increasing pool of women degree holders (AIP Report,
Women in Physics, 2000). We were able to
gather some data on the successful women applicants in the competition. Table 3 shows a slight increase in the number
of female awardees over the past six years, but the overall representation of
women in physics is quite low.
|
Year |
Physics Awards |
Women Awardees |
Ast Awards |
Women Awardees |
Total P/A
Awards |
Total Women
Awardees |
|
97 |
40 |
5 |
13 |
2 |
53 |
7 |
|
98 |
35 |
5 |
13 |
3 |
48 |
8 |
|
99 |
42 |
9 |
10 |
2 |
52 |
11 |
|
00 |
37 |
6 |
12 |
2 |
49 |
8 |
|
01 |
38 |
8 |
12 |
7 |
50 |
15 |
|
02 |
34 |
7 |
12 |
6 |
46 |
13 |
NSF has
two main criteria for selection in this competition as stated in the program
description: (i) intellectual merit and (ii) broader impact. The former
criterion includes traditional measures that are probably familiar to most
students and faculty: the applicant’s proposed plan of research, previous
research experience, academic record, reference reports and GRE test
scores. The latter criterion includes
three explicit components: effective integration of research and education,
potential contributions to diversity, and contributions to community.
Early in
the work of the panel, different aspects of the criteria are presented and
discussed. A short “calibration” exercise
and the resulting discussion are used to illustrate and make concrete the
myriad of factors to be considered.
There are no specific directives to the panelists as to how to weigh
these factors, or how to balance the two main criteria with each other. Individual panelists must do this, developing
in their minds and applying a consistent and graduated system of professional
and personal values. Scoring by
individual panelists and deliberations of the panel at important break points
narrows the field to those recommended for awards and honorable mentions.
i.
Intellectual merit criterion
Panelists
are asked to evaluate the merits of each applicant based on intellectual
achievement and ability. While the most
easily quantified measures such as grades and GRE scores remain important to
panel members, it is clear that these are not the sole or even the determining
factors. Panelists look also for
evidence of original thought, creativity, and depth of commitment to advancing
science through research. The applicant
should demonstrate ability in other accepted requisites for scholarly
scientific work such as communicating effectively through writing and
formulating careful statements of research plans. A student with modest GRE scores, but who is
highly distinguished in other ways, has an excellent chance for a fellowship.
The
proposed plan of research reveals what the “hot topics” are in today’s young
scientists’ minds. This year many wanted
to work in materials science research areas including carbon nanotubes and
quantum dots. Several proposed to work
in particle physics, including CP-violation related research. String theory drew some of the prospective
theorists, and quantum computing was a recurring topic. In astronomy, gravity wave detection and cosmology
led the list. The identification and
formulation of a scientific question and the description of how the applicant
would go about addressing the question are important features of the proposed
research plan that reveal a lot about the applicant’s thought process. Thus, the applicants should try to focus on
one, or at most two, research questions, going into depth about how he or she
would address them. Last year NSF rephrased
the instructions regarding the proposed plan of research and removed language
that suggested applicants needed to write about more than one project.
Under the
category of ‘previous research experience,’ it is a good idea for applicants
not only to state what was accomplished but what they learned personally - even
if their experiment or project was unsuccessful. All else being equal, panelists sometimes
looked favorably at applicants with research experiences extending beyond their
own campuses. This can be an indicator
of the self-motivation to gain exposure to the broader P/A community and to
experience a variety of practices and research tools in areas of scientific
interest through guided research. Some
Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) sites provide training in scientific
writing, scientific ethics, career planning, or other topics, in addition to
the actual research projects.
At this
level of competition, it is of the greatest importance that every bit of
writing by the applicant be clear, concise and free of grammatical errors. Applications that were not proofread
carefully were looked on more negatively.
Some students had apparently not done the research to learn what
projects were being pursued at their intended institutions – an obvious,
important component of a good plan. A
valuable practice can be for a department to recommend a mentor to the
applicant, someone who can make suggestions for presenting the applicant’s
material in the most effective way. The
application process itself can be an important component of professional
training and warrants guidance at this level.
A mentor can give some editorial assistance but more importantly can
discuss what it takes to give sensible direction to the student’s ideas. Of course, there should not be an undue level
of substantive influence. Ultimately, the
application must represent the student’s own best efforts.
ii.
Broader impact criterion
For a
large number of applicants, the broader impact criterion was the decisive
factor. The panel sought not only to
distinguish among students of equally demonstrated intellectual merit but also
to find students who truly distinguished themselves through educational
activity, service, social commitment, and outreach to the wider community.
But the
questions related to this criterion were the most misunderstood by applicants
and their mentors. The “effective integration of research and education“ does
not mean studying a particular topic from the book, and then seeing it “in
action” in the lab, nor does serving as a grader or teaching assistant in one’s
department demonstrate excellence in this regard. Panel members looked for
original, self-motivated contributions by applicants to science education, such
as the development of new or innovative teaching materials, significant
volunteer work with science in local schools or an extraordinary level of
departmental service. “Potential
contributions to diversity” refer to increasing the diversity of the US
population entering science or knowledgeable about it, not to increasing the
diversity of the applicant’s scientific or other interests (an unfortunate but
recurring misunderstanding). Helping one
or two minority or female fellow-students after class hardly constitutes real
distinction here, and being a minority applicant does not automatically fulfill
this criterion. The panel looks for
impact—e.g., taking science to underrepresented groups in the population
through work with public or independent schools, club activity, college- or
university-based programs, or summer work. Initiating science activity and
effective advocacy for science education are highly valued. A minority applicant might not only engage in
such activity but also, through it, serve as a role model to attract others
toward scientific interests. Likewise,
“contributions to community” may include organizing or working with
department-based initiatives, with science museums, or with students through
independent programs. Applicants and
their mentors should think in terms of making a real difference in the lives of
others.
Some
university Physics and Astronomy departments now offer the option of
specializing in Physics Education Research (PER) for doctoral work. The P/A
panel and NSF value and encourage applications by students who wish to pursue
PER. Until now, there have been extremely few.
Here we would expect great strength on the "impact" criterion,
demonstrated intellectual excellence, and an appropriate, carefully developed
plan of research that indicates exceptional knowledge of the field.
4.
Reference reports
The reference reports are crucial!
Panelists take both the letters and the rating sheet very seriously in
determining the rank of an applicant.
But, referring faculty members, being perhaps overworked, do not always
take the time to write letters that contribute meaningfully to this very
important part of the application. The
panelists are looking for information that would tip the balance one way or the
other. A panelist needs specific
information that gives a personal sense of the applicant—more than the fact
that he or she is an excellent student, or did very well in one’s advanced
E&M course. The most helpful letters
provide real insight into what makes the student stand out among the best, what
the student has been able to accomplish as a researcher, how the student has
gone beyond just being enrolled in the class, and especially how the student
thinks about physics. The least helpful
letters were those that rated the student as outstanding or “1” in all the
categories but provided just a few sentences that conveyed little in the
narrative portion of the letter.
Sometimes the letter was very revealing but the ratings did not
correlate with the letter. We urge
faculty members to think about what is useful to communicate in such a letter
and to be consistent in the rating and the narration. The focus should be on an evaluation of the
individual applicant relative to the criteria for the award and not on
justifying or promoting a particular area of research.
Most
applicants had two or three research experiences at or away from their home
institutions but some applicants did not get letters from their research
mentors. If a student works with a
faculty member on a research project, it is very important for the research
advisor to write about what the students strengths were—scientific potential,
independence, creativity, thoroughness, experimental skills, perseverance, etc.
As students go off campus to do research (such as participating in an REU
program), they should be advised to get to know their faculty mentors well, to
the extent that they can rely on their providing truly useful letters of
recommendation.
It is
gratifying to see that there are so many excellent P/A students and that the
stewardship of the future of physics and astronomy in this country is in no
danger. But our experience as judges
leads us to believe that more students, with more diverse strengths, should be
encouraged to apply for these prestigious fellowships. Faculty mentors can provide better guidance
to students in the preparation of their applications. There are no fixed recipes in which a certain
combination of the ingredients insures success.
But, when we identify the strongest students, encourage them to put
themselves forward, and help them present themselves most effectively, we not
only benefit the students but strengthen the wider physics and astronomy
community.
End
Note:
For the 2003 competition, application material will become available at
the NSF GRF website (www.ehr.nsf.gov/dge/programs/grf/) around the first of
August and the application deadline will be November 7, 2002. In addition, the pool of potential panelists
always needs refreshing. Scientists who
would like to become involved should either call toll free 866-353-0905 or
email nsfgrfp@orau.gov.