NSERC CGS-M- what are my chances?

[silent_c]

Hi everyone!

I was wondering if anyone here can tell me what my chances are of getting the NSERC award for the 2018 year. 

I have never received a "research" award before (nor have I applied... sad I know, not sure why it never really crossed my mind).

My last two years GPA is 3.91. I have 3 publications and 1 submitted (and 1 in progress but I did not include that obviously). 

My proposal, however, is likely not my best work because my original proposal was more of a CIHR proposal rather than NSERC so I had to change it 2 days ago  

Would love the insight. Thank you! 

[ExercMed]

It's hard to say. 50% of the award is based on academic excellence (i.e. Transcripts, Awards, and your 2 reference assessments). Never having received an award is a bit of a drawback however it doesn't mean you are dead in the water. 30% is based on Research potential (Quality of your proposal, Canadian CCV, and reference assessments). In this regard having 3 publications puts you ahead however It is hard to judge having not seen the quality of this work nor the feasibility of your proposal. The thing that is the most up in the air would be the 20% allocated to personal characteristics. Based on what you have said here it's impossible to make a firm statement as to your chances but you clearly have a chance. 

Good luck in the competition!!  

[adhominem]

You have a good shot, assuming you are getting high quality reference letters and that your overall GPA is about as high as your GPA in the last two years. Your publication record is obviously better than most people applying for the tri-council CGS-M awards so that is definitely going to put you in the running (assuming your input for them was substantive).

 

[silent_c]

5 hours ago, ExercMed said:

It's hard to say. 50% of the award is based on academic excellence (i.e. Transcripts, Awards, and your 2 reference assessments). Never having received an award is a bit of a drawback however it doesn't mean you are dead in the water. 30% is based on Research potential (Quality of your proposal, Canadian CCV, and reference assessments). In this regard having 3 publications puts you ahead however It is hard to judge having not seen the quality of this work nor the feasibility of your proposal. The thing that is the most up in the air would be the 20% allocated to personal characteristics. Based on what you have said here it's impossible to make a firm statement as to your chances but you clearly have a chance. 

Good luck in the competition!!  

Thanks for your input! I know, I feel completely deterred considering I did not try to apply for any awards before but hopefully, it will be okay haha

[silent_c]

4 hours ago, adhominem said:

You have a good shot, assuming you are getting high quality reference letters and that your overall GPA is about as high as your GPA in the last two years. Your publication record is obviously better than most people applying for the tri-council CGS-M awards so that is definitely going to put you in the running (assuming your input for them was substantive).

 

Do they look at your overall GPA? My overall GPA is definitely not as high as my last two years. I didn't think that mattered though as their website states that they only look at the last two years!

[adhominem]

Maybe it has changed in the past few years. When I got my CIHR CGS-M before transferring to the PhD stream they looked at overall GPA.

[cw2lu4]

It also depends on the school that you're applying to. 

I applied for CIHR at Queen's with a 90% cumulative average, 0 publications, and a below average CCV (according to premed standards), but I got waitlisted. I know someone who has a 95% average and applied for NSERC at Waterloo (Biology department) and got rejected (probably because some of the engineering grad students at Waterloo are extremely smart). 

[silent_c]

1 hour ago, adhominem said:

Maybe it has changed in the past few years. When I got my CIHR CGS-M before transferring to the PhD stream they looked at overall GPA.

I think it did change! This is posted on their website:

Eligibility

Applicant

To be eligible to apply, you must:

• be a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada;
• be enrolled in, have applied for, or will apply for full-time admission* to an eligible graduate program at the master’s or doctoral level at a Canadian institution with a CGS M allocation;
• respect the internal deadline to apply for admission for your intended program of study. Contact the Faculty of Graduate Studies (or its equivalent) at the selected Canadian institution(s) for more detailed information;
• have completed, as of December 31 of the year of application, between zero and 12 months of full-time studies (or full-time equivalent) in:
  • the master’s program for which you are requesting funding; or
  • the direct-entry doctoral program for which you are requesting funding; or
  • the combined master’s-doctoral program for which you are requesting funding; or
  • a master’s program that was or will be fast-tracked to a doctoral program, and you are requesting funding for the first 12 months of this doctoral program;
• not have previously held a CGS M; note that for CIHR and NSERC, scholarship support for graduate studies (master’s and doctoral) is limited to a lifetime maximum of four years (48 months) of full-time equivalency. If you have received the maximum support toward your graduate-level studies by any of the three federal granting agencies, you may not be eligible to apply for a CGS M;
• have achieved a first-class average, as determined by the host institution, in each of the last two completed years of study (full-time equivalent)

[ExercMed]

They use the past 2 years for eligibility, but they can go as far back as 1st year undergrad. Because academic excellence is such a big section (50%) they look at it pretty extensively. Things such as the type of program, course load, and relative standing are assessed over all years of study. Just like some med schools, they know that the 1st years of undergrad aren't going to be top notch for a lot of people. But they want to see that you consistently challenged yourself by taking higher level courses. Do the courses that you did well in apply to your current research? Stuff like that! 

[cw2lu4]

25 minutes ago, ExercMed said:

They use the past 2 years for eligibility, but they can go as far back as 1st year undergrad. Because academic excellence is such a big section (50%) they look at it pretty extensively. Things such as the type of program, course load, and relative standing are assessed over all years of study. Just like some med schools, they know that the 1st years of undergrad aren't going to be top notch for a lot of people. But they want to see that you consistently challenged yourself by taking higher level courses. Do the courses that you did well in apply to your current research? Stuff like that! 

You're exactly right. The admin at my school said the exact same thing. The last 2 years is simply used for eligibility, they will look at your whole transcript to determine if you will receive the award.

Although I hope I won't be penalized too much for my 4th year of undergrad where I declared an arts minor and a majority of my courses were at the 2nd year level.

[silent_c]

1 hour ago, ExercMed said:

They use the past 2 years for eligibility, but they can go as far back as 1st year undergrad. Because academic excellence is such a big section (50%) they look at it pretty extensively. Things such as the type of program, course load, and relative standing are assessed over all years of study. Just like some med schools, they know that the 1st years of undergrad aren't going to be top notch for a lot of people. But they want to see that you consistently challenged yourself by taking higher level courses. Do the courses that you did well in apply to your current research? Stuff like that! 

Damn, well that sucks. I had a 79 average in first year. Its quite unfair for them to make a measure of your academic capability by looking at your first year marks though. Often that's a transitional year for many. My high school did NOT prepare me for any of my first year courses and as a result, didn't do so hot compared to others. 

I do have extensive extracurriculars, if that matters. 

But we'll see. Kinda bummed now  

 

[ExercMed]

Don't be discouraged! You know area's that can be improved in the future. They aren't going to reject your application for having a lower average in first year (as you said, most people do). They are just going to look for how you compensated for it (i.e. do you have an upward trend, did you take higher level courses, how did your references refer to your academic qualities, etc.). Don't lose hope! 

[adhominem]

On 12/2/2017 at 10:53 AM, silent_c said:

 Its quite unfair for them to make a measure of your academic capability by looking at your first year marks though. Often that's a transitional year for many. My high school did NOT prepare me for any of my first year courses and as a result, didn't do so hot compared to others. 

I understand that you might feel that way, but it's a stretch to say that it is unfair of them to take a look at 1/3 of your available university marks (assuming you don't have any completed 4th year courses by the Dec 1 deadline). One could argue that first year marks really separate out who prepared themselves properly for university.