D*R
发帖数: 24 | 1 好几个了，这个是career，每次都是等半年，然后告诉被拒，唉。
为什么总有一个reviewer捣乱呢？ |
M*****n
发帖数: 16729 | 2 详细说说
什么是competitive/recommended 被拒？
【在 D*R 的大作中提到】
: 好几个了，这个是career，每次都是等半年，然后告诉被拒，唉。
: 为什么总有一个reviewer捣乱呢？
|
b*****d
发帖数: 61690 | 3 NSF panel rank recommended， 但是不是highly recommended.
一般只有highly recommended会fund.
【在 M*****n 的大作中提到】
: 详细说说
: 什么是competitive/recommended 被拒？
|
M*****n
发帖数: 16729 | 4 gotcha.
NSF 的要绿卡吧。俺从来没有写过。
【在 b*****d 的大作中提到】
: NSF panel rank recommended， 但是不是highly recommended.
: 一般只有highly recommended会fund.
|
d***a
发帖数: 13752 | 5 是highly competitive和competitive之分吧。
NSF的programs绝大多数不要绿卡。 |
M*****n
发帖数: 16729 | 6 really.
赶明儿咱也写几个
【在 d***a 的大作中提到】
: 是highly competitive和competitive之分吧。
: NSF的programs绝大多数不要绿卡。
|
b**********0
发帖数: 53 | 7 Don't feel too bad. I was in the same situation, but just got my career
funded after three competitive propsals not being funded in the past.
Acutally, tonight, I just learned that my another "compettive" proposal is
declines because of some misundertanding in the panel review. I learned that
how to best present the proposal is very important, because our proposals
may well be reviewed by people who are not experts in our specific areas and
who may also be opinonated.
【在 D*R 的大作中提到】
: 好几个了，这个是career，每次都是等半年，然后告诉被拒，唉。
: 为什么总有一个reviewer捣乱呢？
|
b**********0
发帖数: 53 | 8 I think this may be dependent on program/dvision. For instance, in CISE CNS,
many "competitive" proposals are funded. In the several panels I attended,
usually only 1-2 are rated as highly competitive, and there are usually 3-4
competitive proposals that may be funded.
On the other hand, things appear to be different in CISE IIS. My colleague
just got a "highly competitive" proposal declined there. In CNS, I have not
heard this happened to any one.
Any different experience?
【在 b*****d 的大作中提到】
: NSF panel rank recommended， 但是不是highly recommended.
: 一般只有highly recommended会fund.
|
w********d
发帖数: 270 | 9 The current CISE rule is maximally 30% of proposals in the panel can be put
in either "highly competitive" or "competitive" categories. In other words,
"highly competitive" and "competitive" will be less than 30%... Yes, NSF POs
can select any proposal from the "HC" and "C" pool to fund. They still
typically choose the "HC" ones...But they do have the power to choose to
fund some "C" ones (over "HC").
The difference between CNS and IIS is, CNS has a much higher funded rate
than IIS in each year. You can check the ratios on NSF website. What it
means is that in CNS, after all the "HC" proposals are funded, POs still
have remaining money to fund some "C" proposals. However, in IIS, as far as
I know, the money is so little and even not all the "HC" proposals can be
funded (some "HC" have to be declined at the end, typically forget about
those "C" proposals, no chance in general, unless you are from EPSCoR states
or you are underrepresented groups).
Hope the above information helps.
CNS,
,
4
not
【在 b**********0 的大作中提到】
: I think this may be dependent on program/dvision. For instance, in CISE CNS,
: many "competitive" proposals are funded. In the several panels I attended,
: usually only 1-2 are rated as highly competitive, and there are usually 3-4
: competitive proposals that may be funded.
: On the other hand, things appear to be different in CISE IIS. My colleague
: just got a "highly competitive" proposal declined there. In CNS, I have not
: heard this happened to any one.
: Any different experience?
|
t**********t
发帖数: 12071 | 10 跟CCF比呢？
put
,
POs
as
【在 w********d 的大作中提到】
: The current CISE rule is maximally 30% of proposals in the panel can be put
: in either "highly competitive" or "competitive" categories. In other words,
: "highly competitive" and "competitive" will be less than 30%... Yes, NSF POs
: can select any proposal from the "HC" and "C" pool to fund. They still
: typically choose the "HC" ones...But they do have the power to choose to
: fund some "C" ones (over "HC").
: The difference between CNS and IIS is, CNS has a much higher funded rate
: than IIS in each year. You can check the ratios on NSF website. What it
: means is that in CNS, after all the "HC" proposals are funded, POs still
: have remaining money to fund some "C" proposals. However, in IIS, as far as
|
|
|
m******t
发帖数: 44 | 11 CCF 27%
CNS 22%
IIS 18% |
f*******u
发帖数: 2018 | 12 我们这里是54个能fund最多5个，是不是更加恶心？
put
,
POs
as
【在 w********d 的大作中提到】
: The current CISE rule is maximally 30% of proposals in the panel can be put
: in either "highly competitive" or "competitive" categories. In other words,
: "highly competitive" and "competitive" will be less than 30%... Yes, NSF POs
: can select any proposal from the "HC" and "C" pool to fund. They still
: typically choose the "HC" ones...But they do have the power to choose to
: fund some "C" ones (over "HC").
: The difference between CNS and IIS is, CNS has a much higher funded rate
: than IIS in each year. You can check the ratios on NSF website. What it
: means is that in CNS, after all the "HC" proposals are funded, POs still
: have remaining money to fund some "C" proposals. However, in IIS, as far as
|
t**********t
发帖数: 12071 | 13 哪有这么高。包括了REU之类的吧。
【在 m******t 的大作中提到】
: CCF 27%
: CNS 22%
: IIS 18%
|
a***9
发帖数: 1884 | 14 你这也算恶心? 那我这投和审的program的funding rate是6-7%的人只好掩面飘过了...
NSF的平均15-20%的funding rate对俺们来说就是个joke,俺们那program就属于誓死也
要把平均值拉下来的.
【在 f*******u 的大作中提到】
: 我们这里是54个能fund最多5个，是不是更加恶心？
:
: put
: ,
: POs
: as
|
l*******s
发帖数: 3562 | 15 肯定啊
【在 t**********t 的大作中提到】
: 哪有这么高。包括了REU之类的吧。
|
w********d
发帖数: 270 | 16 In regular research grant competitions, 10% ratio or below is a norm in NSF.
Now even some research facility grant (e.g. CRI this year) is about 10%.
【在 f*******u 的大作中提到】
: 我们这里是54个能fund最多5个，是不是更加恶心？
:
: put
: ,
: POs
: as
|
w********d
发帖数: 270 | 17 Maybe, but the statistics at least show the rates are: CCF > CNS > IIS.
【在 t**********t 的大作中提到】
: 哪有这么高。包括了REU之类的吧。
|
m******t
发帖数: 44 | 18 Was CRI usually funded at a higher rate before? |
