Authors: Drew Lapeer, Graham Doskoch, Bill Smith
What is the NSF GRFP?
If you’ve thought about getting a graduate degree in a STEM field in the United States, you may have heard of the National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP). The fellowship provides funding to graduate students for three full years, to the tune of a $37,000 annual stipend and $16,000 to cover annual university tuition and fees. In science, funding is king, so guaranteed funding through the GRFP can be pivotal for graduate student success. Additionally, the GRFP is a prestigious award, so it can play a big role in securing further opportunities in academia or industry. Typically, more than 2000 students receive GRFP awards each year, although that number was cut in half in last year’s application cycle.
This year’s solicitation
This year’s solicitation – which provides details about application requirements, deadlines, and scope – was fairly unusual. Although the solicitation is typically posted in July, this year’s was not released until late September. That was bad enough. Given the ongoing turmoil at NSF, it was not far-fetched to imagine that the GRFP would not be continued. However, once the solicitation was released, it became clear that its contents were even more problematic than the delay.
Historically, those eligible to apply for the GRFP were undergraduates, folks in the first two years of graduate study, and anyone in between. As of 2016, students could only apply once while in graduate school. This meant that many did not apply until the second year of their PhD, at which point they had valuable research experience, a more extensive publication record, and a clearer idea of where they wanted their academic career to go. It is generally accepted that you can put together a much stronger application in your second year.
The many then-first-year graduate students who chose to not apply in 2024 – who chose to bolster their chances through an extra year of research and preparation – were shocked when the newest GRFP solicitation revoked their eligibility. In big, boldfaced letters, the solicitation stated that only first-year graduate students would be eligible this year – not second-years.
The last minute change meant that many graduate students who had spent months preparing materials suddenly had to throw all of their work away. Such a drastic change is unprecedented; even in 2016, when the NSF began restricting the number of times a graduate student could apply, second-year graduate students were grandfathered in.
Even beyond eligibility changes, several other concerns stick out. For example, the solicitation states that “No clinical or health degree programs are eligible for NSF GRFP consideration. In FY2026, Clinical Psychology graduate degree programs are not eligible for NSF GRFP”, barring students in those fields from applying. Additionally, students whose research “[has the] implication to inform policy.” are also ineligible.
The delay in posting the solicitation and the eligibility debacle towards the end of what has been a year of fiascoes for the NSF. Facing pressure from the White House via threats of massive cuts, the NSF temporarily froze funding in January, fired 10% of its staff, terminated many existing grants and ceased funding new ones, and ultimately slashed the number of GRFP recipients in half in last year’s awards cycle. Its director, Sethuraman Panchanathan, resigned in April, and two months later its headquarters building was seized by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Those funding cuts and associated problems have fallen disproportionately on gender and racial minorities in science, with women and black researchers suffering the most.
Why does it matter?
There are a number of reasons why the eligibility change is a very bad idea – even beyond the impact on current second year graduate students. These changes will reinforce existing biases. The distribution of GRFP awards has historically been inequitable, and the eligibility change exacerbates this issue. A staggering 14% of 2019 awardees attended UC Berkeley, MIT, or Stanford, while only 0.3% attended historically black colleges and universities. With second-year students no longer able to apply, GRFP reviews will now have to rely largely on undergraduate work, biasing awards towards students fortunate enough to have extensive research opportunities at their undergraduate institution. Inherently, this means more privileged students will now have even better chances compared to non-traditional students, reinforcing existing biases.
It’s also in the general public’s interest for second-year graduate students to be allowed to apply. Putting together a competitive GRFP application is difficult when you’ve only been in graduate school for a handful of months, which is what this cycle’s crop of first-year graduate students is now faced with. Of course, plenty of excellent applications are submitted by undergraduates and first-year graduate students; however, the average quality is likely to decrease, potentially lowering the overall quality of research funded by the GRFP. Additionally, many now-second-year graduate students have spent considerable time preparing applications. That now-wasted time could have been spent on, for example, research and public outreach activities.
In summary: the current situation is unfair to pretty much everyone involved in the application process. Now, perhaps the NSF can justify these losses – but that seems unlikely. The NSF’s stated rationale, that the change will “restore the program’s original emphasis on supporting students at the start of their research careers”, is disingenuous; the average length of a PhD in the United States is approximately six years, and academic careers can span most of a person’s lifetime. A second-year graduate student is just as much an early-career researcher as a first-year graduate student.
What can you do?
Are you unhappy with the changes we’ve outlined above? So are lots of other people. So what can you do to help in the fight to amend these changes?
First, a group of scientists, including previous NSF GRFP program director Gisèle Muller-Parker, has put together a petition to restore eligibility to second year graduate students. If you’re someone who has been impacted, you should consider joining the over 850 people who have already signed. At the time of writing, they are still gathering signatures and testimony, and have sent the petition to NSF leadership.
Additionally, if you have been impacted by these changes, especially as a second year graduate student, you should consider reaching out to your congresspeople and let them know how the changes will impact your education and/or career. To assist you, we’ve provided an email template below for graduate students in astronomy.
Dear [Representative/Senator]
My name is [Your Name], and I am a second-year graduate student in [Your Field] at [Your University].
I am sharing my deep concern about the recent changes to the National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowship Program (NSF GRFP), which now prevents second-year graduate students like myself from being eligible to apply. The NSF GRFP has long been a cornerstone of U.S. investment in scientific innovation. For over 70 years, it has empowered graduate students across the country to pursue their cutting-edge research ideas, strengthened America’s research enterprise, and prepared the next generation of STEM leaders. This year, by limiting eligibility to only first-year graduate students without warning, the NSF has excluded many talented young researchers from applying. At the national level, this policy change risks narrowing the STEM talent pipeline at a time when the United States needs to expand it. Reducing opportunities for these students undermines our competitiveness and weakens our investment in innovation.
A strong application for the NSF GRFP requires significant investment. I, along with thousands of other second-year graduate students, have already invested months crafting competitive applications in anticipation of the solicitation, time that could have been spent conducting research that has now been squandered due to this abrupt change.
I urge you to work with NSF to revisit this decision and restore eligibility for second-year graduate students. Preserving this opportunity is essential for ensuring that the best ideas and the broadest range of talent can continue to strengthen America’s scientific future.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your support of U.S. science and innovation.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your University]
[Your Contact Information]
These changes to the GRFP are not just a setback for individuals; they are a challenge to all of us who believe in a thriving, inclusive future for astronomy. Early-career scientists, in particular, have the most at stake, but this is the moment for all of us – students, postdocs, and faculty alike – to raise our voices, defend the opportunities that shape our career paths, and demand that science funding serve the people who carry its future, not leave them behind.
Update on 11/6/2025: Official transcripts are now also required for GRFP applications. This marks another change, as previous years only required unofficial transcripts for your application.
Featured image credit: Sophie Kalakailo
