You've probably read the horror stories about GRFP winners who were unable to use their fellowship because they applied using one major field of study (Chemistry, Engineering, Psychology, etc.) and then accepted a Ph.D. program in another major field of study. These stories are unfortunately true, and I have one friend who dealt with this personally. My best advice is to only apply to graduate programs within a specific major field of study (MFS), for example, if you select ENGINEERING as your MFS, you can safely apply to Chemical Engineering, Bioengineering, Nanoengineering, and Quantum Engineering, to name a few. You would not be able to accept a program in Organic Chemistry, Quantum Information Science, or Nanochemistry, however, because those are under the MFS CHEMISTRY. Check the solicitation for further instruction on this, it's a doozy.

There are thousands of students who apply for the GRFP each year, so it is vital that your application stands out. The most direct way to accomplish this is by telling a cohesive story throughout your application. For example, I have a family that suffers from various medical conditions and many of my volunteer efforts have been driven by a desire to help people with similar conditions. My research involved using conjugated polymers for applications in medical monitoring devices and wearable sensors, so I was able to connect my Personal Statement with my Proposal. Using the personal statement as a place to expand on your scientific motivation helps the reviewers to understand your trajectory. If, however, your research has nothing to do with your personal history, I encourage you to try and find a connection. There has to be some reason you chose to pursue science as a career. Identify that reason, then exploit it since this will aid your "Broader Impact." The more cohesive your application is, the better the reviewers will be able to remember your application.

Following up on #2, the reviewers will be much more likely to give $34,000 a year to someone who has clearly defined and attainable goals for their future. It's your job to envision a future for yourself, even if you're currently extremely unsure about that future (as I was). Remember that this application is not a contract, so you just need to make the reviewers believe that you know what you want for yourself. The helpful part is that, in developing your application, you'll likely peel back the curtains on what kind of career you want for yourself which will strengthen your resolve. Academia is riddled with imperfections, but this is an opportunity for you to explain, in "Broader Impacts" terms, how you plan to combat those imperfections - whether that's eventually in higher academia, industry, or government.

The research proposal was, without a doubt, the most difficult component of my application. Thankfully, my advisor and graduate mentor were incredible at helping me decide what I would be best suited to write about. The direction from which the proposal is approached varies from applicant to applicant, and while some students are so fantastically gifted that they can come up with a research proposal entirely on their own, most of us cannot. Remember that the research proposal is not a contract. No one will be twisting your arm and forcing you to perform this research because, after all, you probably won't even know where you'll be accepted to grad school when the fellowship results come out. There's no shame in expanding on old research from your lab, as long as you can put your own unique spin on the research and develop a scientifically sound proposal. The reviewers want to see that you can write like a scientist and keep their interest.

I'm not sure if this is widely expected in the proposal, but I would strongly suggest developing and including a hypothesis for your work. If your research has not been concluded (and it shouldn't because they expect a proposal) try to predict your findings based on previous work or your own experiences based on similar methods. This is a small suggestion, but predicting is what makes great scientists, and your application will stand out if you do it too.

This is another small tidbit of advice, but make sure that the sources you cite are relatively new. A friend of mine was critiqued for citing a paper from 2004, which is logical since so many developments have occurred in his field since then. Make sure you only go back a few years for the sources you cite unless absolutely necessary.

The key to winning the GRFP can be summed up in three words: FEEDBACK, FEEDBACK, and FEEDBACK. Get an opinion from your research mentor, advisor, campus rep, professors, and anyone else who is willing to read it. I had 15 different people (that I can remember) to read and edit my application, and each one identified an area for improvement. Some people avoid getting too much feedback for fear of harsh critique, but that harsh critique is what will improve your application. Having said that, it is important to know which advice to use, and which to discard. You know yourself best, and you should know your research best, so only you can decide which edits to keep or discard. At some point, you will have to say, "Enough is enough," and hit the submit button.

If you can get past the competitive nature of the application process, I highly recommend finding a friend who is also applying for the GRFP to compare applications with. The same friend that I worked with on my Goldwater application worked with me on our GRFP applications. The helpful feedback we provided each other paid off, and we both won the GRFP!