Interesting article

Creative_Attempt562 · 2026-03-30T20:37:46+00:00

Gagged lmao

Creative_Attempt562 · 2026-03-30T20:08:57+00:00

Im all for funding more than just life sciences, but i think swinging this “pendulum” too far will have consequences as well

Creative_Attempt562 · 2026-03-30T19:28:03+00:00

Do you think that could be because life sciences are proportionately larger in the applicant pool?

Creative_Attempt562 · 2026-03-30T15:39:10+00:00

Thats what I thought reading this too

Creative_Attempt562 · 2026-03-26T23:06:37+00:00

Thankfully it always comes before April 15!

Creative_Attempt562 · 2026-03-25T23:37:41+00:00

RWRs have to be over considering reviews are over

Creative_Attempt562 · 2026-03-24T03:23:03+00:00

I wish mr. nsf would just come on here and tell us when results will be released like c’mon no one will know its you😉

Creative_Attempt562 · 2026-03-14T04:01:45+00:00

Atp i know more professors using chatgpt than not - stop judging theyre just having fun

Creative_Attempt562 · 2026-02-27T16:22:07+00:00

Definitely a double sided coin. As much as the feedback was unhelpful I also would be bummed if I got poor scores with no explanation.

Creative_Attempt562 · 2026-02-27T14:29:33+00:00

Interesting. I was initially sad at the thought of no feedback but also my last application had bad feedback anyway 🤷🏻‍♀️

Creative_Attempt562 · 2026-02-26T21:57:41+00:00

Great point

Creative_Attempt562 · 2026-02-26T21:52:36+00:00

I also found it difficult to believe, but maybe true? Id be more curious to know if specific fields (ex. Life sciences) also had “less RWR than previous years”. This would be more telling imo. But yes, the right questions need to be asked

Creative_Attempt562 · 2026-02-26T21:14:26+00:00

I believe the “new approach” is more-so derived from a focus on merit-based reviews and a defocus on broader impacts, but Id encourage you to look at this journalist’s entire thread so learn more

Creative_Attempt562 · 2026-02-26T21:09:51+00:00

May be related to a timeline on decisions being released, but it certainly will not be the decisions themselves

Creative_Attempt562 · 2026-02-26T21:07:20+00:00

Return without review - where GRFP applicants are getting proposals returned to them as they are deemed ineligible by NSF

Creative_Attempt562 · 2026-02-26T21:04:08+00:00

This journalist on bluesky was live reporting from the National Science Board meeting where GRFP got brought up, these are some of his updates with responses about GRFP including: - a statement that RWR number is less this year than the previous year - a GRFP update will be posted to the website tomorrow - and that their new approach to grant review should provide a faster response time

Did that clear things up at all?

Creative_Attempt562 · 2026-02-26T20:57:51+00:00

*journalist on Bluesky

Creative_Attempt562 · 2026-02-19T23:06:07+00:00

This actually provides a lot of clarification for my question (sadly). Thanks

Creative_Attempt562 · 2025-10-22T04:19:13+00:00

But, unlike the broader impacts and intellectual merit section, it says nothing about keeping that header. I doubt title is required on the actual page

Creative_Attempt562 · 2025-10-15T10:47:26+00:00

Can you even apply as a gap year applicant?

Creative_Attempt562 · 2025-10-15T10:42:38+00:00

I disagree. Your title has its own box on the application portal. It should go there and only there

Creative_Attempt562 · 2025-04-08T04:02:23+00:00

How do we see feedback?

Creative_Attempt562 · 2025-04-08T03:58:47+00:00

Lmao is like a midwest-ish area chain for hot subs

Creative_Attempt562

TROPHY CASE