1 / 9

NSF CTS COV FY 2000-2002

NSF CTS COV FY 2000-2002. June 12 and 13, 2003 Committee Members Timothy W. Tong (Chair), GWU Linda J. Broadbelt, Northwestern University Juan J. de Pablo, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison John K. Eaton, Stanford University

wiley
Download Presentation

NSF CTS COV FY 2000-2002

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NSF CTS COVFY 2000-2002 June 12 and 13, 2003 Committee Members Timothy W. Tong (Chair), GWU Linda J. Broadbelt, Northwestern University Juan J. de Pablo, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison John K. Eaton, Stanford University Henry C. Foley, Pennsylvania State University Brian Higgins, Univ. of California, Davis John R. Howell, Univ. of Texas, Austin Vijay T. John, Tulane University Lawrence A. Kennedy, Univ. of Illinois, Chicago Babatunde A. Ogunnaike, Univ. of Delaware Levi A. Thompson, University of Michigan

  2. Charge to COV • Review of the integrity and efficiency of the program’s processes and management. • Review the program’s progress in meeting the Foundation’s outcome goals in people, ideas, and tools. • Comments on any other topics that the Committee deemed helpful to the Division.

  3. COV Events • Before visit – received documentations regarding proposal submission, dwell time, award size, funding rate • During visit – heard oral presentations about CTS and the programs, reviewed 133 jackets, discussed observations, documented findings, presented preliminary feedback to Assistant Director, Division Director, and Program Directors • After visit – completed report

  4. Major Findings • CTS effective in assuring integrity and achieving efficiency in processes and management – proposals funded are of high quality, decisions meeting 6-month dwell time increased from 50% to over 80% • CTS successful in meeting outcome goals in people, ideas, and tools – support for CAREER awards is particularly impressive

  5. Recommendations • Broader impact criterion still not addressed to the same extent as the technical merit criterion – need to educate PIs and reviewers about what is expected under the broader impact criterion • Need to increase the yield on mail reviews – give longer duration grants, require one-page white paper, use pre-selection triage • Need to involve more woman and minority reviewers – expand reviewer pool to involve researchers from national labs and industry • Should encourage minorities to submit more competitive proposals – offer mentoring programs to minority applicants

  6. Recommendations (cont’d) • To leverage its resources, CTS is encouraged to participate actively in multidisciplinary initiatives • Organize a crosscutting CTS summit workshop to examine its programs and identify areas that should be included in the portfolio • More funding to CTS is needed to increase average award size from $80,000/year to a more appropriate level • More funding to CTS is needed to increase CAREER success rate from 16% to 24% (Foundation-wide success rate)

  7. CTS Response to COV Report • 50-60% response rate by external reviewers, reviewer workload • CTS will seek installation of an electronic reviewer database • Time savings in selection of reviewers • Expanding and updating the reviewer information through web-based nominations/applications • Improved diversity of reviewers • Adjustment of reviewer workload

  8. CTS Response to COV Report • Increasing award size and duration • CTS program directors will attempt to fund proposals at the request level. Increases in graduate stipends justify increased award size. • Increasing CAREER success rate • CTS program directors are committed to improve CAREER success rate. • Pros and cons of Panel vs. Mail review • CTS will consider two deadlines for submission of unsolicited proposals

  9. CTS Response to COV Report • Improving funding and participation of minorities • CTS will develop strategies of identifying and nurturing minorities • Minority Faculty Workshop • Involving minorities in industry and government laboratories as reviewers • Ensuring participation of CTS community in the PFF:PFF (Postdoctoral Faculty Fellowships: Preparing Future Faculty) program

More Related