Is receiving Honorable Mention from the NSF something you should note on CV for grad school and RA/TA opportunities? I know that the NSF receives 14,000-15,000 applications every year and only 4,000 of those revive funding or Honorable Mention, so it seems to me like an achievement.
Yes, of course. Congratulations, it’s a big honor.
Receive*
Thanks for your input. I’ve been on the fence about updating my CV. Some seem to think that if you didn’t receive money, then it’s not worth noting.
For our PhD admissions committee - would not help in any way. It might look a bit odd depending on the committee member - would give the impression that you didn’t have anything more impactful to list on your c.v. Honorable mention is different from receiving the fellowship, and NSF is a tough one to judge in any case because they consider demographics and geography at least as much as they consider credentials (quality of student applicant and faculty mentor).
Okay thanks for your input. However, I’m more interested in the impact for an incoming MA student than a PhD student. I was admitted into an MA program and was curious if it was something that I should let my professors know about for future research assistant opportunities.
We don’t offer RA positions to our MS students, so I have no idea, sorry. In the departments I’ve worked in, only PhD students were eligible for RAs and TAs.
It would not be a factor in our department. More important is whether you have the kind of research experience that a faculty would want from a student.
I am in a position to know, and - no, they don’t. This is not true.
I have been both an awardee and reviewer - although not in the last several years. And they certainly do take demographics and geography into consideration as part of evaluating “broader impacts”.
I am both an awardee and reviewer for NIH, where funding decisions are made almost entirely based on scores from peer merit review.
dunno about geography, but no question that demographics are a factor in the awards:
yup, geography is also a factor:
“A hallmark of GRFP is its contribution to increasing the diversity of the STEM workforce, including geographic distribution, as well as the participation of women, underrepresented minorities, persons with disabilities and veterans.”
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=245024&org=NSF
I was also both a GRF myself and a reviewer for the program - recently, within the last 3 years as a reviewer and within the last 10 years as an awardee. (We’re not supposed to divulge exactly which panels we’re on.) I also serve as an experienced resource person for the NSF GRF and have been on multiple other NSF study sections for other graduate education programs. I am not objecting to the fact that geography and demographics are taken into account. They absolutely are, as the NSF explicitly states that they are committed to increasing diversity of the scientific workforce.
I am objecting to the statement that they are taken into account “at least as much as they consider credentials (quality of student applicant and faculty mentor),” and moreover, the implication that 1) it might be more than other credentials and/or 2) NSF awards are somehow less important/prestigious/difficult to derive meaning from because they do take that into account (which I derived from “NSF is a tough one to judge in any case because they consider demographics and geography at least as much as they consider credentials.”) Correct me if I misinterpreted your statement, of course.
Maintaining the diversity of the awardee pool on a number of axes is important to the NSF, but the quality of the applicant and their research credentials is paramount. It’s just that NSF reviewers are encouraged and instructed to look at the quality of the applicant and their academic/intellectual credentials from multiple different angles, where quality includes not just the intensity and merit of the scientific methods/design itself, but the usefulness and impact of the science and the scientist on society. NSF is a taxpayer funded agency, after all.
I also have been an awardee and reviewer for NIH, and while funding decisions are indeed made on the basis of peer merit review scores, the diversity and impact of applicants and of projects is also considered. It’s baked into the peer merit review.