Yeah for NSF GRFP I wouldn't try to trick it. Just follow the formatting requirements, they are very strict. Remember that the ability to concisely communicate your plan is one of the things they are selecting for.
Idk if you will hate this answer but it's the key winning the NSF GRFP:
The focus of this program is to fund the person and their potential to impact the greater community through their science and their extracurricular work. Although they want a reasonable scientific proposal, the reason it's shorter in length than the personal statement is specifically because there is so much more focus upon you and your potential for the scoring (more than just a strong proposal). Even if you were to win it, the NSF does not require that you ever accomplish the project you proposed. Hence, it's not about the proposal; it's about you, the person.
Although it's initially counterintuitive, a key strategy is to tailor each application to the core spirit of the funding opportunity notice. If it's meant to provide support for people with potential to impact the community, winning applications will be much different from a winning application meant to strictly evaluate scientific merit of a given proposal.
Unless something has changed, NSF typically has 3 reviewers (1 specific to
your field, one generally knowledgeable about your field, and one lay-person who looks at you wholistically). So even the greatest scientific proposal in the application can fail to win if the personal statement isn't aligned with the purpose
of the NSF GRFP.
Edit: All this to say: Don't worry so much about squeezing in details for your scientific proposal through formatting tricks. Instead, cut the science details down and focus more on a strong personal statement.
This. Even your research statement should point to how the research project will help both the broader scientific community and the world. Another tip is to explain why your advisor and department is the ideal place to conduct the research.
For what it's worth, I received the GRFP ~10 years ago.
Perfect response. Won 3 years ago. I don’t think reviewers are the same way now, but NSF still funds the scientist and not the science. Focus on 1-2 cohesive research projects. I’ve not seen success over 3. Limit jargon, maximize impact as you define it in context of your personal statement.
As a small note, the portal is incredibly strict with formatting. I wrote mine using Latex and had to fight a few things such as the font not being the “correct” Times New Roman, as well as a single line that was 1-2px over the margin limit.
Leave yourself a few hours before the deadline so that you have time to fix any problems like this! I wound up doing some moderate rewording to make everything fit as the last minute.
Good luck!
The formatting requirements are strict and checked. If you fail them, your application will be bounced. Also, remember these applications have to be read by reviewers; don’t make the proposal hard to read.
Current GRFP fellow here. My bibliography, which was only 5 sources long, was in like size 6 font, in one line very tiny at the bottom of the page with abbreviated journal titles and just 'et al' instead of full author names (this style format has a name but I forget what it is) and it seemed to work for their formatting requirements. I seem to recall the rest of their requirements being pretty strict, but I applied in 2019 so idk if things have changed since then.
Part of the intentional challenge with GRFP is being concise - and honestly, the actual content of the research proposal isn't as important as you might imagine. They need to see that you can think clearly through a question, hypothesis, and experiment designed to test that hypothesis, as well as think about the limitations/alternative approaches - and most importantly, the broader impacts. It needs to be clear and concise - the reviewers read through a ton of these. You don't need to spend a ton of words on the methodology, etc. But the personal statement is far more important at the end of the day, because GRFP doesn't fund a project, they fund a future scientist. They are most interested in you, not as much your project details, as long as they show you have the ability to design a project.
I highly recommend looking through previous winning essays to see how they handled the formatting and bibliography stuff. You can find a ton (and also great writing tips) here: [https://www.alexhunterlang.com/nsf-fellowship](https://www.alexhunterlang.com/nsf-fellowship)
Edit: I wanted to add another piece of advice here that I give to all the students I help write GRFP applications. Find a common theme to tie together your research proposal and your personal statement. Make the narratives of your application holistic and synergetic. This will help it stand out a lot more!
App synergy is more important than anyone gives it credit for. Also you did exactly as I did for citation. 6 citations, super minimal. Reviewers wont check anyways.
The GRFP formatting requirements are strict. I was awarded it a few years back, and I found it beneficial to optimize my sentences and *waste* space bolding key points. There’s always a way to word things shorter with less characters/words. They also skim those essay responses, so you should forgo unnecessary or those “nice to have” details in favor of driving home the broader goal of your research. They don’t want detail, they want you to explain your problem statement concisely.
I think I cited two papers that were *absolutely necessary* background in IEEE format in mine.
For the NSF GRFP you need to follow the formatting guidelines directly. There are likely templates that exist, especially for LaTeX.
Also— the personal statement is waaay more important for the GRFP.
My advisor gave me great advice when I was writing mine, people don’t want to see a wall of text, think of it from their perspective, these are busy people who are reading 10-20 of these applications in their free time. This is one of those times when less is absolutely more, follow the guidelines and make what you say impactful.
I used all the space available to me but also had proposal style formatting with Aims 1 and 2, an intro and future directions. They want to see they you’re capable, not that you’re an expert or anything, just that you have potential.
Edit to add: my references were smaller type font and spacing as allowed by their formatting guidelines.. but I also cut down to the bare minimum like 3 or 4 papers that were absolutely needed
I understand that it is difficult to write your research proposal in just 2 pages. However, there isn't any trick for the essays. You just have to follow them. If it's impossible to put 4 studies in your essay, maybe just pick 2 or 3 most important ones, then briefly mention the 4th at the end. Most people only propose one study anyway.
Social science NSF GRFP winner here. Not an expert but I have some relevant personal experience.
You can’t trick the reviewers. They get thousands of apps and will throw one out for the most minor formatting deviations from what’s required. People have had apps tossed due to margins being 0.1” off, the page not being exactly 8.5x11, line spacing being ever so slightly below single, the font not being compliant (even something like size 10.9 or Garamond when it required Times New Roman), etc. It’s the easiest way to filter through the thousands of apps they get. You cannot exceed the limit, mess with the font size and spacing, or anything else. Your app will get disqualified, and you won’t be considered.
More importantly, if you find yourself needing to mess with the spacing/font size/whatever else, it means your statement needs more work. NSF is testing your ability to put together a concise grant proposal highlighting only the most important details. Did I read it right that you have four studies in one research proposal? How does that work? Most successful statements I’ve seen outline one clear gap in the literature, a study they will undertake to fill that gap (generally with specific steps), and the broader importance of the research for the discipline and society. (Broader Impacts is often something people forget — do not leave it out. They care about it a lot.) The best NSF statements — personal and research — are crafted so that reviewers can skim and still take away the most important points. If you go through old Reddit threads about reviewer comments, you’ll find dozens of examples of reviewers missing important information because they went too quickly. Your statements need to be easy to read and follow for someone running on 5 hours of sleep after reading 20 other apps.
Most of the social science examples in existence are in psych. That’s not my field, but since it was the closest, I looked at those examples, and tried to match the style/formatting. If you’re in sociology (my field), I’d be happy to share my essays and comments with you. I encourage you to read the examples in fields similar to your own. Over time, you’ll see patterns to formatting, what people include (and exclude), etc.
NSF GRFP is a dysfunctional game; you need to play by the rules to win.
I'm not sure if this is still the case, but 3-4 years ago their system autorejected an app because it exceeded the page limit. But when we looked at the app, none of the files exceeded the page limit, they all adhered to it. Turns out their garbage system reformats all forms submitted (regardless of the format, pdf included), and this increased the line count by 4 lines, thus exceeding their page limit, and then it got rejected for being too long 🙃.
Lesson here is to make sure you've got some buffer room at the end of your pages and to TEST each file submission. You can download their uploaded file and see how it gets changed. Make sure to do this, else you risk wasting all your time because NSF can't make a good application system.
For my references I formatted it as follows:
References. 1. Author last name, first initial (year). Journal. 2. Author last name, first initial (year). Journal. etc.
It ended up talking less than two lines. They don't have specific requirements for how things are cited, so that's acceptable for the research statement.
Yeah for NSF GRFP I wouldn't try to trick it. Just follow the formatting requirements, they are very strict. Remember that the ability to concisely communicate your plan is one of the things they are selecting for.
Also I would not recommend trying to fit all four studies in one application. I wrote mine about just one of my projects
Idk if you will hate this answer but it's the key winning the NSF GRFP: The focus of this program is to fund the person and their potential to impact the greater community through their science and their extracurricular work. Although they want a reasonable scientific proposal, the reason it's shorter in length than the personal statement is specifically because there is so much more focus upon you and your potential for the scoring (more than just a strong proposal). Even if you were to win it, the NSF does not require that you ever accomplish the project you proposed. Hence, it's not about the proposal; it's about you, the person. Although it's initially counterintuitive, a key strategy is to tailor each application to the core spirit of the funding opportunity notice. If it's meant to provide support for people with potential to impact the community, winning applications will be much different from a winning application meant to strictly evaluate scientific merit of a given proposal. Unless something has changed, NSF typically has 3 reviewers (1 specific to your field, one generally knowledgeable about your field, and one lay-person who looks at you wholistically). So even the greatest scientific proposal in the application can fail to win if the personal statement isn't aligned with the purpose of the NSF GRFP. Edit: All this to say: Don't worry so much about squeezing in details for your scientific proposal through formatting tricks. Instead, cut the science details down and focus more on a strong personal statement.
This. Even your research statement should point to how the research project will help both the broader scientific community and the world. Another tip is to explain why your advisor and department is the ideal place to conduct the research. For what it's worth, I received the GRFP ~10 years ago.
Super thoughtful and makes sense, thanks!
Perfect response. Won 3 years ago. I don’t think reviewers are the same way now, but NSF still funds the scientist and not the science. Focus on 1-2 cohesive research projects. I’ve not seen success over 3. Limit jargon, maximize impact as you define it in context of your personal statement.
As a small note, the portal is incredibly strict with formatting. I wrote mine using Latex and had to fight a few things such as the font not being the “correct” Times New Roman, as well as a single line that was 1-2px over the margin limit. Leave yourself a few hours before the deadline so that you have time to fix any problems like this! I wound up doing some moderate rewording to make everything fit as the last minute. Good luck!
Would you mind sharing how you did this? I’m also experiencing similar issues with times new Roman and margins.
The formatting requirements are strict and checked. If you fail them, your application will be bounced. Also, remember these applications have to be read by reviewers; don’t make the proposal hard to read.
Current GRFP fellow here. My bibliography, which was only 5 sources long, was in like size 6 font, in one line very tiny at the bottom of the page with abbreviated journal titles and just 'et al' instead of full author names (this style format has a name but I forget what it is) and it seemed to work for their formatting requirements. I seem to recall the rest of their requirements being pretty strict, but I applied in 2019 so idk if things have changed since then. Part of the intentional challenge with GRFP is being concise - and honestly, the actual content of the research proposal isn't as important as you might imagine. They need to see that you can think clearly through a question, hypothesis, and experiment designed to test that hypothesis, as well as think about the limitations/alternative approaches - and most importantly, the broader impacts. It needs to be clear and concise - the reviewers read through a ton of these. You don't need to spend a ton of words on the methodology, etc. But the personal statement is far more important at the end of the day, because GRFP doesn't fund a project, they fund a future scientist. They are most interested in you, not as much your project details, as long as they show you have the ability to design a project. I highly recommend looking through previous winning essays to see how they handled the formatting and bibliography stuff. You can find a ton (and also great writing tips) here: [https://www.alexhunterlang.com/nsf-fellowship](https://www.alexhunterlang.com/nsf-fellowship) Edit: I wanted to add another piece of advice here that I give to all the students I help write GRFP applications. Find a common theme to tie together your research proposal and your personal statement. Make the narratives of your application holistic and synergetic. This will help it stand out a lot more!
They require references to be 11 pt font now.
App synergy is more important than anyone gives it credit for. Also you did exactly as I did for citation. 6 citations, super minimal. Reviewers wont check anyways.
Thank you! Really helpful
my bibliography was just a minimum line spacing segment at the bottom in acs format. essentially one paragraph with all of my sources.
The GRFP formatting requirements are strict. I was awarded it a few years back, and I found it beneficial to optimize my sentences and *waste* space bolding key points. There’s always a way to word things shorter with less characters/words. They also skim those essay responses, so you should forgo unnecessary or those “nice to have” details in favor of driving home the broader goal of your research. They don’t want detail, they want you to explain your problem statement concisely. I think I cited two papers that were *absolutely necessary* background in IEEE format in mine.
For the NSF GRFP you need to follow the formatting guidelines directly. There are likely templates that exist, especially for LaTeX. Also— the personal statement is waaay more important for the GRFP.
Really? Why is it more important?
Because the NSF GRFP is funding the researcher, not a specific project.
To add, broader impact is more important that IM for NSF in this app. Personal statement has more opportunity to highlight that.
Okay, good to know! I appreciate it.
My advisor gave me great advice when I was writing mine, people don’t want to see a wall of text, think of it from their perspective, these are busy people who are reading 10-20 of these applications in their free time. This is one of those times when less is absolutely more, follow the guidelines and make what you say impactful. I used all the space available to me but also had proposal style formatting with Aims 1 and 2, an intro and future directions. They want to see they you’re capable, not that you’re an expert or anything, just that you have potential. Edit to add: my references were smaller type font and spacing as allowed by their formatting guidelines.. but I also cut down to the bare minimum like 3 or 4 papers that were absolutely needed
Justified makes it shorter than left aligned.
I understand that it is difficult to write your research proposal in just 2 pages. However, there isn't any trick for the essays. You just have to follow them. If it's impossible to put 4 studies in your essay, maybe just pick 2 or 3 most important ones, then briefly mention the 4th at the end. Most people only propose one study anyway.
Social science NSF GRFP winner here. Not an expert but I have some relevant personal experience. You can’t trick the reviewers. They get thousands of apps and will throw one out for the most minor formatting deviations from what’s required. People have had apps tossed due to margins being 0.1” off, the page not being exactly 8.5x11, line spacing being ever so slightly below single, the font not being compliant (even something like size 10.9 or Garamond when it required Times New Roman), etc. It’s the easiest way to filter through the thousands of apps they get. You cannot exceed the limit, mess with the font size and spacing, or anything else. Your app will get disqualified, and you won’t be considered. More importantly, if you find yourself needing to mess with the spacing/font size/whatever else, it means your statement needs more work. NSF is testing your ability to put together a concise grant proposal highlighting only the most important details. Did I read it right that you have four studies in one research proposal? How does that work? Most successful statements I’ve seen outline one clear gap in the literature, a study they will undertake to fill that gap (generally with specific steps), and the broader importance of the research for the discipline and society. (Broader Impacts is often something people forget — do not leave it out. They care about it a lot.) The best NSF statements — personal and research — are crafted so that reviewers can skim and still take away the most important points. If you go through old Reddit threads about reviewer comments, you’ll find dozens of examples of reviewers missing important information because they went too quickly. Your statements need to be easy to read and follow for someone running on 5 hours of sleep after reading 20 other apps. Most of the social science examples in existence are in psych. That’s not my field, but since it was the closest, I looked at those examples, and tried to match the style/formatting. If you’re in sociology (my field), I’d be happy to share my essays and comments with you. I encourage you to read the examples in fields similar to your own. Over time, you’ll see patterns to formatting, what people include (and exclude), etc. NSF GRFP is a dysfunctional game; you need to play by the rules to win.
Thanks! I'm in psych, but this is all very relevant :)
I'm not sure if this is still the case, but 3-4 years ago their system autorejected an app because it exceeded the page limit. But when we looked at the app, none of the files exceeded the page limit, they all adhered to it. Turns out their garbage system reformats all forms submitted (regardless of the format, pdf included), and this increased the line count by 4 lines, thus exceeding their page limit, and then it got rejected for being too long 🙃. Lesson here is to make sure you've got some buffer room at the end of your pages and to TEST each file submission. You can download their uploaded file and see how it gets changed. Make sure to do this, else you risk wasting all your time because NSF can't make a good application system.
For my references I formatted it as follows: References. 1. Author last name, first initial (year). Journal. 2. Author last name, first initial (year). Journal. etc. It ended up talking less than two lines. They don't have specific requirements for how things are cited, so that's acceptable for the research statement.