advice

[Vid]

Folks,

My NSF CAREER proposal was declined...I am deeply saddened....looking over the comments I just see clowns and bullies! Last year the panel ranked my CAREER proposal "Competitive" and this year the panel ranked it "Not Competitive"...really weird. This was my third try:(

I asked the NSF PD about the ranking differences, he said "From year to year, both the composition of reviewers and the competing CAREER proposals change. I am sorry that there is not better news for you."!!!

What is your advice at this point? should I submit it as a regular proposal or EAGER? I am crying since Friday!! I worked on the idea really hard.

Thank you.

[The Future]

Sorry to hear your news.  I do not have experience with this so I cannot give advice.  Perhaps the good news or silver lining is that since you got good feedback on yours last year and since someone did point out that present circumstances do have an impact on decisions, perhaps the next step you do decide to take will yield a favorable outcome.  In the spirit of Thanksgiving - I am grateful for your hard work and effort to make the most of your work :)  - a great example for all of us trying to get tenure, or a good yearly eval, or just a good class eval - to keep trying

[mamselle]

Yes, sorry to hear that as well.

There's an ongoing NSF CAREER thread here:

   https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=2657.60#msg106810

and a follow-up thread somewhere also.

Reading it (or posting to it) might net you some replies and/or perspective by others in your shoes, if you haven't already done so.

M.

[Ruralguy]

Speaking  with recently successful grantees and reviewers for CAREER might help. Some are likely in that thread.

[Puget]

I can't offer specific advice (I'm an NIH not NSF person), but just know that this is normal-- with funding lines being what they are, most people (me very much included) write 5-10 unfunded grants for every one that lands, and there is a lot of luck of the draw in terms of reviewers. It is really hard not to take it personally, especially when your career may be on the line, but for the sake of your mental health it is essential to work on separating your self-worth from grant scores. There is also no benefit to being mad a reviewers-- it is probably not personal for them either, they just have different ideas from you-- some may be good, and you can incorporate those, others bad and you can think about how to clarify why what you propose is better in future proposals.

[hazelshade]

Second everything Puget said. A few more thoughts from a sponsored projects perspective:

• In general, I would avoid focusing on differences in rankings from year to year when you talk with your PO. Even in a best-case scenario, this isn't going to gain you any useful information; depending on the tone of the conversation, it could reflect poorly on you.
• When you're ready, I would recommend reaching out to the program officer and letting them know that you're hoping to submit similar work as a regular proposal or, if appropriate, an EAGER proposal. Ask for a phone call or Zoom to talk about your ideas; you will get much better feedback than in an email exchange. You will have to significantly reframe work from a CAREER proposal to fit either of these formats (given the different focuses of the programs and timespans of the grants), so put a little thought into that first.
• I realize this is very hard to do right when the reviews come in, but I'd try as hard as you can to move away from thinking about critical reviewers as "clowns and bullies." Remember that reviewers are giving you valuable insight into how your materials read to an outside audience (and, except in rare cases, are acting in good faith); their feedback can alert you to real problems in the work or in how you are communicating it.

[Ruralguy]

Also, volunteer for a review panel. Not for that program, but maybe for one for which you have already been successful?
Knowing the review process through being a  reviewer can be very informative (and also make you much less likely later to blame a reviewer for their low score) .

[doc700]

Also, volunteer for a review panel. Not for that program, but maybe for one for which you have already been successful?
Knowing the review process through being a  reviewer can be very informative (and also make you much less likely later to blame a reviewer for their low score) .

I have not been awarded an NSF CAREER -- I have only applied twice but had the frustrating experience as well of having my score go down as well.  That said, I took an un-funded NSF CAREER proposal and submitted to the DOE Early Career and got the funding!  So there really does appear to be a lot of randomness in these things and it took me a lot of tries but stuff did converge.  It doesn't make it less disappointing or frustrating at the time but this doesn't necessarily mean the work is un-fundable.

I will second the suggestion to serve on a panel.  I served on NSF CAREER panel my first year as a professor before I had submitted my own grant.  It did give me a lot of context into the review process (not that I was successful in getting an CAREER though!).  I also found it super helpful to be on collaborative team grants with senior colleagues.  Senior colleagues of course will give you feedback on your single-PI grants.  But I found that the best feedback I got was co-PI'ing a grant where they weren't just giving me feedback out of kindness but were motivated to win the grant together.  I've learned a lot of lessons in co-PI'ed grants that I was able to translate into my own single PI grants in terms of how to frame the work, risk etc.

[Vid]

Thank you, folks. I am a reviewer and panelist for several NSF programs. Currently, I have two active grants with NSF (not with this PD). I 'll contact the PD and ask for a zoom meeting (I had an NSF grant with him before). ...but after some time.

Best.

[fizzycist]

Sulk for a few days. Then put it behind you, find a different solicitation, revise and resubmit. And write up a few other ideas as proposals to other agencies.

Managing emotions over proposal rejections is perhaps the single biggest differentiator I see among new faculty. Those who can stuff it in a box and revise and resubmit as frequently as possible always have the edge. But it takes a toll, I get it.

[Unseen Academical]

I have an NSF CAREER. Personally, I would talk with the PD to get an EAGER to get the data collected for proof of concept and then used that for an MCA right after I get tenured. The mid-career is not as prestigious as the CAREER, but it is a great opportunity that can help one getting to full faster. I'm sorry you did not get funded, but I wish you good luck on turning it into another project!

[hazelshade]

I have an NSF CAREER. Personally, I would talk with the PD to get an EAGER to get the data collected for proof of concept and then used that for an MCA right after I get tenured. The mid-career is not as prestigious as the CAREER, but it is a great opportunity that can help one getting to full faster. I'm sorry you did not get funded, but I wish you good luck on turning it into another project!

I'm curious whether this is a good strategy. For one, you have to have been at the rank of associate for at least three years to apply for MCA, so applying right after tenure isn't an option for most folks. Also, my understanding is that the MCA is absolutely *not* supposed to be considered a "second CAREER" sort of program--rather, it's meant to support folks whose research agendas have been constrained by heavy teaching and service loads. In fact, the current solicitation has beefed up the language about this particular focus of the grant (most notably in the section on criteria). MCA is an amazing program that more folks should check out, but I don't know that what you've described above is its intended use.

[Vid]

 I booked a zoom meeting to talk with the NSF PD! what questions should I ask? should I go through the panel summary with him?

fizzycist: yes, it takes a toll!! God knows how much I coded and provided very nice results in the preliminary results section. I worked on this proposal for almost 4 years. I cannot still believe it! this NSF program has been criticized for funding white males. I do not have a bias towards any gender/race, but last year they funded 6 Career proposals (5 white males, 1 Asian (male)), and the year before (6 white males, 1 female, 1 Asian).... and this list goes on...I heard on social media that a group is working on a Nature paper that will address this!

Thank you, folks.

[Ruralguy]

Certainly, don't mention anything you just said to Fizzycist.

I don't know the secret sauce to NSF approval either, but being straightforward (and please, very pleasant and courteous)
would likely help. I guess ask for his interpretation of reviewers remarks, and ask if there is anything you could do to improve either your work or your proposal to increase your chance of funding. He might just say its a freakin' dart board, and just throw the darts. But, he might have something more constructive to say. Others here who have more recent success in this area could possibly add more insight.

[Vid]

Thank you, Ruralguy. Yes, I understand. I amnot going to talk about those numbers and previous awardees. Not my job!

Look forward to other feedback.

Best.