As a graduate student at the University of Iowa, Rachel Casas, PhD, wasn't discouraged by her second rejection for a National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship grant. "Sadness isn't productive for me," says Casas, now an assistant professor of psychology at California Lutheran University.
Instead of brooding, she channeled her inner tiger and reapplied. Casas won the grant on her third try.
"Everyone at the graduate level is so bright," she says. "It may not be brains that will make the difference [in winning grants], it'll be sheer persistence."
That's sage advice, say funding experts. In today's environment of rising education costs and shrinking financial aid packages, only a small percentage of students who compete for grants will win an award on the first try. It takes stamina and dedication to forge ahead.
Just ask Alexa Lopez, a doctoral candidate at the University of Vermont who chairs the APAGS Science Committee. She and the other committee members review graduate student applications for the APAGS Basic Psychological Science Grant and the Junior Scientist Fellowship, which APAGS sponsors with Psi Chi, the International Honor Society in Psychology.
Only about 10 percent of applicants succeed on the first try, she says. About 20 percent to 25 percent who are turned down will reapply.
"Funding is difficult to get," Lopez says. "So you have to be able to take criticism and turn it around."
That means giving careful consideration to reviewers' comments and using them to bolster another attempt. "The feedback is there to help you succeed," she says.
Being open to changes
Persevering requires different approaches, depending on why an application is turned down. For example, Edmarie Guzmán-Vélez, a doctoral candidate at the University of Iowa, learned that her first application for the NSF grant was rejected because she needed a stronger track record on publications.
Through her advisor, Guzmán-Vélez made connections to collaborate with graduate student researchers at Iowa's nursing school and at Pennsylvania State University on a study about sustained attention in a population with dementia. At the time, she was coauthor on an article submitted to The Clinical Neuropsychologist based on work with Casas, whose dissertation research on how interpreters influence the results of neuropsychological tests took place in Guzmán-Vélez's native Puerto Rico.
Those projects earned her two new publishing credits. She also added teaching experience as a graduate assistant to her application. Pressing on to win the NSF grant on her second try "showed me how much I love what I do," she says.
Jeannie Celestial's persistence led her to submit more than one application before she received the APA Minority Fellowship Program award.
The fellowship carried a $20,000 annual stipend until her internship begins. "That's a significant impact on my overall student debt," says Celestial, a doctoral candidate in clinical psychology at the Pacific Graduate School of Psychology at Palo Alto University.
Just as important, she adds, is the network of mentors and professional development opportunities the program offers. "It's lifelong support."
Celestial realizes now that her first application failed to describe her research and clinical interests in detail. "At first I said I wanted to advance mental health among Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders," she says. But she specifically wanted to work with clients of her own Filipino American ethnic background.
"That's what the APA is looking for — people who are uniquely qualified to serve these minority communities," Celestial says.
Some graduate students who don't get a grant or fellowship on the first try instead receive an honorable mention. That's not a sign of failure. On his first try for the APAGS Basic Psychological Science Grant, Logan Fiorella got an honorable mention.
"It was helpful," says Fiorella, a doctoral candidate in cognitive psychology at the University of California Santa Barbara. "It encouraged me that I was close but could still strengthen my application."
He took reviewers' feedback to heart and revised his application to include a power analysis to validate the number of participants he would need for his study. Fiorella got the grant in the next application cycle.
Now, as an APAGS Science Committee member who reviews grant applications, he has a better appreciation for how competitive the process is. "I see dozens of perfectly deserving applications turned down," he says.
Megan Smith, a doctoral candidate in cognitive psychology at Purdue University, also reviews grant applications on the APAGS Science Committee and offers suggestions for success. She says proposals to fund research that's strong in both basic science and clinical, public health or other applications have an advantage in many grant programs. "A dual purpose is really a good thing," she says.
Write clearly enough so a reviewer whose specialty area is different from your own will easily understand your project, Smith adds. "Even if the reviewer is in your area, he or she will appreciate it being easier to go through," she says. "It's not necessarily bad to write at the undergraduate level."
Following instructions
It's also important to carefully follow the application instructions, Smith says. For example, the APAGS Basic Psychological Science Grant application asks for detailed budget information. Some students scatter it throughout the application, but putting it all together at the end is recommended.
"Things like that make a difference, and they're always easy to do," Smith says.
Apply to many grant programs, and consider ways to tweak your research to fit eligibility criteria, says Casas. When she applied for the NSF grant, the program typically didn't fund clinical psychology students because its focus is basic science. "But my research is neuropsychological in nature, so I had to convince them that it was basic science."
After her second rejection for the NSF grant, Casas looked up previous years' recipients on the organization's website and contacted those specializing in neuropsychology. She asked to see their grant applications and several sent copies. "I read through them and tried to emulate what I saw," she says.
Celestial says that despite feeling disappointed when her first attempt failed, her faculty advisor reminded her that the odds of rejection are 100 percent for students who don't apply — or who don't reapply.
"Not getting the grant doesn't mean your work was in vain," she says. "It just means that you didn't get it this time."
Rebecca Voelker is a journalist in Chicago.