IRCHSS

LordOctane2009

Hi.

Just wondering what people thought of the feedback that they got from the IRCHSS. In my own case - the feedback was glowing and said that my idea was good enough to published but I still did not get funded. My feedback did not say anything negative at all and did not highlight anything that could be improved - what makes it worse is that I found out my ranking of over 600 my application I was ranked in the mid 300's which just does not add up

I just was wondering what other people got back because I am at a loss as to what it takes to get funded by this crowd.:mad:

dublin.caucus

Based on the reply I got, it wasn't exactly clear why I didn't get funding!

How did you find out your ranking? I missed it, if it was on the feedback sent out.

scop

Hey Lord. Once again I'm sorry you didn't get it.

I would conclude from your ranking that most applicants put together excellent proposals. I mean it is not as if there is going to be more than 300 bad applications now is there? This is PhD level. There are not many bad eggs left. We're all at a mean level of intelligence so I suspect that you are ranked 300 with very little to discern you from someone ranked 150.

My own successful application remarks tended to focus on my publication record, conference attendance, teaching experience and project feasibility. I would add that I've worked immensely hard over the last two years to get to a kind of 'stand out' stage precisely because I know that at PhD level it is difficult to set yourself out from the crowd.

My project is also pretty tight in terms of getting it finished. I'm sure that also appealed to them.

LordOctane2009

Hi Scop,

First off congrats again on the funding. Secondly, apologies for the length of the post – it could be much longer but I had to cut it short. I hope that you don't think that I am simply suffering from sour grapes syndrome but there are a few things that I have to put into context.
In relation to my track record I am an occasional lecturer in UCD and I have over 6 years tutoring experience in two separate subjects. I have also presented at numerous conferences and I have had work accepted for publication.
In relation to the proposal I spent over 6 months working intensively on it. The major issue that I have is that I had four senior professors from different topics as well as different subject areas working on it. Along with that I had two Dr's as well as more than half a dozen PhD students, who where themselves funded by the IRCHSS or other funding bodies. All of these people very kindly worked on my proposal and extremely confident in the strength of my proposal. In all of the funded PhD students freely admitted that my proposal was stronger than their own. I revised my proposal hundreds of times and took account of everything that was said in last year’s feedback which is mentioned in my feedback report this year.

As regards my feedback - the report itself is glowing. Under the section Purpose and feasibility of grant it reads "This is an intellectually ambitious, but feasible, project now in mid-stream. The applicant has made significant progress." I would also like to add that I am a self supporting PhD and I have never even been able to get even near a part-time level of study, let alone full time because of having to work part time jobs and teaching. (The fact that you won’t get a grant to do a part-time PhD is a whole other topic)

In terms of my academic background - the report reads "The applicant has read widely, is aware of both older and more recent work on his subject, and has strong views about it ... [the applicant] has significant things to say, and can appreciate the merits or existing scholarship as well as denouncing its weaknesses."
The report also states that "the project has the potential coherence and interest to merit publication in the book he also mentions" - the book mentioned here is the one I intend write on my topic when ever I complete my PhD.
Under the final section improvements and recommendations for the future - it reads in its entirety: “The application is notable for the firmness of the applicant's views. This is refreshing, so long as it does not harden into a set of rigid postures." It does not give me any indication as how I should improve my application in any way. I hope you can therefore understand my surprise when I learned that I was ranked in the mid 300s.

The reason I have given you the above quotes is to help you understand my frustration at this procedure. Throughout the entire feedback report it does not raise one criticism in relation to my proposal and in fact is quite the opposite. The only recommendation is that I should be careful not to become dogmatic in my future studies, which is understandable given that you want to make your opinions very clear in such proposals. The only thing missing from the feedback report was congratulations on your funding.

So I am left with a very obvious question: What is going on when 4 professors, 2 doctors and more half a dozen funded PhDs and a proposal that is recognised as being very strong can't get funded or ranked above the 300s?

All suggestions are welcome

Once again sorry for the length of my post

bonneidee

Hey LordOctane,
Sorry to hear about your annoyance; you have a really impressive academic background, and it sounds like your proposal was top notch. I was also unsuccessful in attaining funding, and I too felt (actually I still feel) quite frustrated with this process. A similar situation for me - feedback was very, very positive and very, very encouraging. I have another chance to apply next year, and I plan to write an exceptional proposal. However, it seems that that's just not enough. I have friends in the same situation - great proposals, but no funding. The whole thing puzzles me. Now all I can do is concentrate on continuing my research self-financed, and if I receive anything in the meantime it will be a huge bonus; otherwise, if I start thinking too much about this annoying and very confusing process, I will actually drive myself mad! Of course, it goes without saying that the current economic situation couldn't have helped us either. Try not to let it dishearten you though, because it really sounds like you're kicking academic ass!

One more thing, can I ask how you found out about the ranking?
Thanks

LordOctane2009

How I got the ranking is the only good thing that came out of this thing. I was flatly refused but then I rang them back and asked to speak to somebody about a freedom of information request. There was no response for a couple of days but out of the blue two days ago I got a call from the head of the IRCHSS, Dipti Pandya, we were on the phone for over half an hour and I very politely, but firmly expressed my annoyance and disquiet over the organisation.

Issues discussed included successful applications that breached the IRCHSS' own guidelines - I can allow for discrepancies of panels but not bad administration. I told her that I had put in so much work with the help of so many people and that I had received such a good feedback report. The major was that I had no indication as to how I could improve my proposal. She initially was very dismissive of the ranking and said that she could not see the value of it - when she told me my ranking I just said that given the amount of work that I put into my proposal, my track record and the feedback report that I received there was never going to a chance for me to get funded by the IRCHSS. I would not have minded if I was within the top 200 but to be so far off the mark left me, and others, gob-smacked.

What was the most worrying thing about that conversation was that she said that giving feedback was a "hassle." So not only does she not want to give a ranking she also does not want to give feedback - this in my opinion is a disgrace. It seems that if she had her way all you would get is a yes/no answer and that is it.

I also asked about my proposal grade as per the alpha system - apparently I got an "alpha" grade which makes no sense because the words used in the grade descriptor in the Terms and Conditions for an alpha* grade are all used in my feedback report. She also told me that inclusion of this grade descriptor in the T&Cs was a "mistake" and would not be in it next year - again this is very worrying. I will be writing a letter to them in the next few days putting my concerns in writing and will submit an official FOI to get my ranking on paper.

I hope this helps - so if they refuse to give you a ranking just ask for the person who deals with FOIs - given the amount of work we all put into our proposals the least we can expect is our ranking

I hope this helps

LordOctane2009

I should also say that I sent them a couple of letters last years over the bad administration thing - so I know that I am known in that office and which is why they knew I wasn't going away. I won't get funded but at least I will have registered my complaint and it might change something in the future - you never now

So the bottom line is - be polite but be persistent

When I get my official response I will let you know

lagreene

I got the funding and the feedback was very brief but made reference to a publication I had three times and the reference I got from my future supervisor.
It wasn't just a standard "insert name here" reference. My supervisor commented on each section of the form, such as the project itself, my literature review, my methodology, basically everything I put in the application and then also just general comments about me. She put a lot of time into it and I think it showed that she was dedicated and interested in my research. And I think this greatly helped me as it was a sign that her future input and enthusiasm would continue over the course of my research. I know other students who may have had better grades than me and more conferences etc but their supervisor put no effort into their reference....

scop

LordOctane2009 wrote: »

Hi Scop,

First off congrats again on the funding. Secondly, apologies for the length of the post – it could be much longer but I had to cut it short. I hope that you don't think that I am simply suffering from sour grapes syndrome but there are a few things that I have to put into context.

I don't think you have sour grapes at all and I hope my post did not come across as an accusation. I'm just trying to find some reasons. It baffles me too a little. My suggestion is basically not that you suck but that at our level nobody sucks! So therefore it is normal to have 300 people who also wrote excellent proposals and had no negative criticism. In other words you are in the same boat as most people: hardworking, creative, inventive, doing important work etc. but something about your project did not appeal to the panel. That X factor could be anything and I'd just hate to see someone who is as passionate as you clearly are get down about this kind of thing...even though I know from experience (I also failed in my first application) how hard that is and it leads to a kind of bafflement at just what it is academia wants of you.

LordOctane2009

Lagreene - In relation to the references you are completely but I also covered that base as well - "Both references confirm his abilities and commitment, and also the significance of the project. The appropriateness of Professors X and X as supervisors and the library and other resources available at UCD make it an obvious location for this research."

Scop I know that you didn't intend to be accusatory and thank you for the advice - my problem is that this is my second application and I covered every possible base. There was absolutely nothing else I could have done to improve my application which leaves me with the obvious reality that my topic will just not get funded by the IRCHSS which is very disheartening.

It also comes back to the fact that I have read successful proposals that were just not as good as mine own and it seems to me that the bottom line is that it is not an individuals proposal or academic record that is being judged - it is simply their topic - if that is the case then I just wish they would put it on their terms and conditions and save people going through so much hassle working on their proposal.

Just wondering if other feel people feel the same?

roe_cat

I don't know how it all works but would the importance of your research topic not come into it? The proposal could be fantastically presented, with amazing references, but they mightn't see the project as being as worthy as some other (possibly less well presented) proposal. Just a thought

LordOctane2009

Roe-Cat you have hit on the heart of the issue - Topic vs. Application

According to the IRCHSS' own terms and conditions "The Board will rank the applications on the basis of the materials supplied." I know for a fact that topic does take precedence over the application because I read successful applications from previous years that breached the terms and conditions of the IRCHSS. The problem is that no where in the terms and conditions or when I spoke to the staff of the IRCHSS has it ever mentioned that an application was being judged more so on topic than on the application itself. These applications should not have been judged let alone funded. What is extremely frustrating and hypocritical is that I know of people who were turned last year for minor breaches of the exact same terms and conditions. It is not acceptable that the IRCHSS can pick and choose when to adhere to its own roles. I have particular issue with the word counts. Before submitting for this year's scheme I rang up and asked about the word counts - the response that I was given was "do your best" - You either stick to the rules or you don't - other wise there is not point having them. All I am asking for is a level playing pitch when it comes to the administration of the scheme at the very least.

This is a postgraduate scheme that is designed to fund the best and brightest PhD students in Ireland and in my opinion the ability of a student is best reflected in their academic record and the application they submit. The issue of an applicant's topic should only come into it at the very end of the judging process after all the best applications, and not the topics, have been picked out. Applications which breach the rules should be disqualified irrespective of their topic. Applications that are well written and adhere to the terms and conditions demonstrate that the student is dedicated, hardworking and prepared to put a lot of time and energy into crafting their work; all factors that one would thing would be important for making a good academic. That is not to say that such applications will always be successful but they should always beat applications that are not as well written.


It seems clear to me and to others that there is a basis towards certain areas or topics - this would include topics with an Irish slant, relate to topics in the news (Banking Crisis etc) and so on. If this is the case then fine - I just wish the IRCHSS would have the decency and honesty to put up the topics or areas that they are interested in on their websites and it would save some of us a lot of wasted time and energy.

If the IRCHSS wants to continue with favoring topic over application - they should just ask everybody to submit their description of topic and only ask those whose topics they want to submit a full application. On a more realistic note it is ridiculous in this age of technology that the IRCHSS does not have an online system of submitting the application. I know other funding bodies utilize such as system - UCD Seed Funding Scheme. One of the big benefits is that applicants cannot submit an application that is incomplete or one that breaches the terms and conditions. This at least ensures that as far as the T&Cs go all applicants would be in the same boat and it would take it out of the hands of the IRCHSS staff.

The reality is that minority subject areas suffer and independent mature students who wish to study these subjects are at a severe disadvantage.