3 ms·

as someone who couldn't manage getting hired by an R1 university, and also had three NSF CAREER proposals rejected, it's a bit sobering to see someone get it al

by deater 5y ago

as someone who couldn't manage getting hired by an R1 university, and also had three NSF CAREER proposals rejected, it's a bit sobering to see someone get it all so easily and then walk away from it. Not that I necessarily blame him, fairly burnt out on academia myself currently. Not getting a CAREER award can really set one back, both in time wasted applying but then having to compete with those who have them. I often felt like the NSF asks for so much these days, including excessive (and possibly unrealistic amounts of) K-12 outreach. I am always curious if you go back after 5 years, how many of the winners actually did everything they promised in the proposal.

lumost 5y ago
If there is no measurement, or limited enforcement - then I'd bet it's approximately equal to one or two visits. Whenever someone tacks on way more requirements than could possibly be met, there is a natural prioritization. If after 5 years you didn't deliver on the core idea - then the NSF probably won't care that you completed all of the k-12 outreach. If you hit the research objectives out of the park, then they are going to demand you max out the k-12 outreach.
supernova87a 5y ago
I found those NSF outreach requirements very frustrating, because I knew (or believed) that aside from some actually conscientious and dedicated people, most everyone was making up perfunctory or fictitious plans for how they would satisfy this requirement if they got the grant. And the NSF would not be checking on whether people actually did those things, or take back the money if they weren't fulfilled, so basically (I felt at the time) it was incentivizing people to lie about their intentions. I didn't feel good about making up such stories. So I guess I lost out to those who were willing. If you're going to put in requirements like this, I think you'd better follow up and make sure people don't take you for fools and say what you want to hear but not do it later. (edit to add: my experience is based on having been through this 15 years ago, so it's probably to be taken with a grain o salt)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ModernMech 5y ago
  > I knew (or believed) that aside from some actually conscientious and dedicated people, most everyone was making up perfunctory or fictitious plans for how they would satisfy this requirement if they got the grant. > And the NSF would not be checking on whether people actually did those things, or take back the money if they weren't fulfilled, so basically (I felt at the time) it was incentivizing people to lie about their intentions. I didn't feel good about making up such stories. So I guess I lost out to those who were willing. On what are you basing these assertions? As part of an NSF funded research project with an outreach component, we definitely had to deliver on it and I had to write about it in our annual reviews. If we had failed to deliver on our promises in a perfunctory of fictitious way, we definitely would have been in jeopardy of having our funding pulled. The NSF doesn't have to take back money because they don't give you all of the money up front. They can refuse to give you the rest of your funding, and then good luck on your next NSF grant proposal.
  - supernova87a 5y ago
    I believe you, about how it is now. It didn't seem that way 15 years ago when I was observing it.

by deater 5y ago

lumost 5y ago

If there is no measurement, or limited enforcement - then I'd bet it's approximately equal to one or two visits. Whenever someone tacks on way more requirements than could possibly be met, there is a natural prioritization. If after 5 years you didn't deliver on the core idea - then the NSF probably won't care that you completed all of the k-12 outreach. If you hit the research objectives out of the park, then they are going to demand you max out the k-12 outreach.

supernova87a 5y ago

I found those NSF outreach requirements very frustrating, because I knew (or believed) that aside from some actually conscientious and dedicated people, most everyone was making up perfunctory or fictitious plans for how they would satisfy this requirement if they got the grant. And the NSF would not be checking on whether people actually did those things, or take back the money if they weren't fulfilled, so basically (I felt at the time) it was incentivizing people to lie about their intentions. I didn't feel good about making up such stories. So I guess I lost out to those who were willing. If you're going to put in requirements like this, I think you'd better follow up and make sure people don't take you for fools and say what you want to hear but not do it later. (edit to add: my experience is based on having been through this 15 years ago, so it's probably to be taken with a grain o salt)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ModernMech 5y ago
> I knew (or believed) that aside from some actually conscientious and dedicated people, most everyone was making up perfunctory or fictitious plans for how they would satisfy this requirement if they got the grant. > And the NSF would not be checking on whether people actually did those things, or take back the money if they weren't fulfilled, so basically (I felt at the time) it was incentivizing people to lie about their intentions. I didn't feel good about making up such stories. So I guess I lost out to those who were willing. On what are you basing these assertions? As part of an NSF funded research project with an outreach component, we definitely had to deliver on it and I had to write about it in our annual reviews. If we had failed to deliver on our promises in a perfunctory of fictitious way, we definitely would have been in jeopardy of having our funding pulled. The NSF doesn't have to take back money because they don't give you all of the money up front. They can refuse to give you the rest of your funding, and then good luck on your next NSF grant proposal.
- supernova87a 5y ago
  I believe you, about how it is now. It didn't seem that way 15 years ago when I was observing it.