I agree with others that it would be better for the student to write the proposal and submit it as the PI, particularly if the professor is not an active synchrotron user. In reviewing GU proposals, it is fairly easy to spot a new user, either by too little focus on the specific type of information that the synchrotron technique will provide (for example, not recognizing for a very complex sample that a spectrum is some average of multiple bonding environments), or by too much focus on experimental details such as data-collection and analysis steps that are considered routine for more experienced users. Definitely try to strike a balance between the broader impacts of the science and usefulness of the analyses, versus the specifics of how the data will be collected and analyzed. Also, I think it would help to state that you've taken an XAFS course. It would be best to team up with an experienced user, ideally working in the same field, or at least have an experienced user read the proposal if possible. Seeing previously-published work by someone involved in the project (even if that person agrees only to give advice during the course of the study) helps convince the proposal reviewer that the PI will get useful data without a lot of trial-and-error. Dean DEAN HESTERBERG Professor Dept. of Soil Science College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Box 7619 3235 Williams Hall NC State University Raleigh, NC 27695-7619 voice: (919) 513-3035 fax: (919) 515-2167 email: dean_hesterberg@ncsu.edu On Sep 23, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Bruce Ravel wrote:
Hi folks,
Yesterday I received an interesting question about writing beam time proposals. I know that proposal review panel members at least from APS and NSLS are readers of this mailing list (perhaps other synchrotrons as well), so I thought it would be interesting to start a thread on proposal writing strategies.
The fellow who sent me mail asked: My question is, since I am a student, should my advisor be the official PI applying for time or should I be the PI? Is there any advantage one way or the other?
In principle, I think it should not matter. Beam time should be awarded to a quality proposal. What advice do you all have for this proposal writer? What has your experience in applying for beam time?
BTW, this fellow had been a student in a recent XAS summer school. I suggested he mention that in his proposal.
Regards, B
-- Bruce Ravel ---------------------------------------------- bravel@anl.gov
Molecular Environmental Science Group, Building 203, Room E-165 MRCAT, Sector 10, Advance Photon Source, Building 433, Room B007
Argonne National Laboratory phone and voice mail: (1) 630 252 5033 Argonne IL 60439, USA fax: (1) 630 252 9793
My homepage: http://cars9.uchicago.edu/~ravel EXAFS software: http://cars9.uchicago.edu/~ravel/software/exafs/
_______________________________________________ Ifeffit mailing list Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit