Educational Grant Applications

1,387 applications. 1 tech role. 3 days. That’s how many people applied to a single position we posted after 4:00 PM on a Friday. It’s a snapshot of today’s tech job market. I’ve just spent 3 hours reviewing applications… manually. No knockout questions. No AI filters. Just me, Workday, and a lot of caffeine. I wanted to share how I worked through it to hopefully give jobseekers a helpful peek behind the scenes: 🔹 𝐒𝐭𝐞𝐩 𝟏: Workday limits viewing after 500+ applicants unless filters are applied. So I broke them up by application date. 🔹 𝐒𝐭𝐞𝐩 𝟐: We can’t offer sponsorship. I filtered out applicants requiring it which accounted for 238 people, or about 17% of the total. 🔹 𝐒𝐭𝐞𝐩 𝟑: Boolean search using core technologies from the job description. These were standard for the role, and this brought the pool down to 322 resumes or about 23%. 🔹 𝐒𝐭𝐞𝐩 𝟒: Manual review of all 322 resumes. From there, 61 candidates stood out...roughly 4% of the original pool. 🔹 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐭𝐞𝐩: I’ll now use preferred qualifications to choose 10 to 15 candidates for screening calls. The rest go into a “short list” for future roles or re-review. I know keyword filtering can feel like a black box, and yes, it can miss great people. But when time and tools are limited, and the role requires specific, foundational skills, it’s a necessary part of the process. If those skills aren’t on your resume, they’re likely to be overlooked. Sharing this not to gatekeep, but to help jobseekers better understand what’s happening on the backend and how to stand out in a high-volume tech market. Anything surprising stand out to you from this process?

Make writing a proposal for research funding easy. Here is how. There is a tendency to rapidly begin filling in the parts of the application form as soon as possible. With a deadline looming, I used to ask all the partners in a consortium project to state filling in their work packages right away after the first meeting. I had a sooner the better mentality. My plan would be that once we had work packages written I would piece them together. The result. Frankenstein projects. Work packages that did not align, and objectives that sounded like they were each describing different projects. It was a writing nightmare. I was trying sew different ideas together. Reviewers see stitches. Like a good scientific paper, a funding proposal has to have a good logical flow. I now realize that the panicked approach I took previously to funding proposal development is not how to do it. It is much better to be 100% certain of the concept. Then write. For some projects this happens very quickly. Other projects take much more time. Sometimes what you are aiming to do is just complicated and full of uncertainties. Take that time. For scientific papers an outline works. For funding proposals the first step is to get all those involved aligned on the concept. This is not to say you don't write anything at all. To the contrary writing is a way to think. But you need to build up the layers. 1️⃣ Describe the problem and what you will do on a high level. 2️⃣ Then the impacts, outcomes and outputs you intend to have 3️⃣ Then the methods. ➡️ Methods are where you often uncover subtleties and problems that were not apparent at first. You need to solve those problems and the accompanying doubts before you can really begin to write. 4️⃣ Then you can build a project plan. Not before. "Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe." -Abraham Lincoln Take the time to get the concept right, then write. 

My first 5 grant applications were rejected. Every single one. Here's how I went from £10k to £10m in research grant funding: I remember opening that fifth rejection email and thinking maybe my research just wasn't good enough. Maybe I wasn't cut out for this. Then a panel reviewer told me something that changed everything. She said: "I stopped reading on page 2." Not because the science was weak. Because the way I presented it was. I had buried the real-world impact on page 3. I led with the literature gap instead of the problem. My methodology was sound but my narrative was invisible. I was writing for academics. I should have been writing for funders. So I rebuilt my entire proposal structure around three principles. I now call it the 3P Proposal Structure. P1: Problem Framing. Lead with the real-world problem and its cost. Not the gap in the literature. Funders don't fund gaps. They fund solutions. "This problem costs the NHS £2.3 billion annually" hits harder than "this area remains under-explored." P2: Path Innovation. Show what you will do differently. Not just what you will study. Every applicant studies something. Very few explain why their approach is the one that will actually work. P3: Projected Impact. Connect your outcomes to the stakeholders who fund research. If the funder can see themselves in your story, you win. Same research question. Completely different proposal structure. The next application secured half a million pounds. Then a million. Then over the course of my career, more than £10 million in research funding. Grant writing is storytelling. Your research is the plot. The funder needs to see themselves in the story. What's the most frustrating feedback you've received on a grant application? Save this framework. Repost for anyone applying for funding. #GrantWriting #AcademicFunding

Looking back at my first major grant application, I wish someone had pulled me aside and shared some hard-earned wisdom. After 25 years in molecular science, here's what I learned the hard way: The science isn't the hardest part - it's the human element. I spent countless hours perfecting my methodology section while nearly forgetting to address why my research mattered to real people. Three things I wish I'd known: 1. Start with the impact story. Reviewers are humans who want to understand how your work changes lives, not just appreciate your technical brilliance. 2. Build relationships before you need them. My first application failed partly because I hadn't cultivated relationships with potential collaborators and industry partners. 3. Budget for the unexpected. I learned that transformative research often happens in the margins - those unplanned experiments and serendipitous discoveries need financial breathing room. The biggest lesson? (I know, I'm repeating myself here) Great science needs both technical excellence and emotional intelligence. Understanding the human side of grant writing - from reviewer psychology to stakeholder engagement - made all the difference in my later applications. For those preparing their first big grant: Your brilliant science deserves to be funded. Just remember that humans, not algorithms, make those decisions. (Maybe this'll change in some not so distant future, but for now I think it still holds)

Most research proposals are dead on arrival. I’ve reviewed dozens of them. (And I’ve secured over $2M in funding.) I can tell you exactly why reviewers toss yours in the reject pile. It’s usually not the science. It’s the storytelling. Here is the brutal truth about winning grants. 1. You are burying the lead Reviewers are tired. They are reading your proposal at 11 PM on a Sunday. If they've to hunt for the problem you solve, you lose. State one clear issue. Frame it immediately. Show the impact before you get into the weeds. 2. Your literature review is a laundry list Most PhDs treat this section like a book report. "Smith said this, Jones said that." Boring. Command the literature. Don't just summarize. Challenge old assumptions. Map the specific gap that only 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 work can fill. 3. Your methods are vague "We will analyze the data" is a lazy sentence. It screams incompetence. Match specific tools to specific questions. Detail your data collection. Show me you have a plan for when things go wrong. 4. You are hallucinating the timeline Research never goes according to plan. If your timeline looks perfect, I know you’re lying. Break it into phases. Set clear milestones. Add buffer weeks for the disasters that will happen. 5. You write to sound smart Cut the academic jargon. It doesn't make you look smart. It makes you look insecure. Use simple language. Make it scannable. Reviewers shouldn't need a dictionary to understand your hypothesis. 6. You ignore the boring rules I have seen great people lose funding because they messed up the margins. Follow the guidelines exactly. Check every citation. Submit early. Don't let a formatting error kill a year of work. Good proposals tell stories. Great proposals solve problems. Your job isn't just to do science. It's to sell a future where a specific problem is solved. I turned my specific framework into a free guide. It breaks down the 7 moves to make your proposal stand out. Grab it in the comments. And if this gave you a reality check, repost it ♻️ to save a colleague from a rejection letter. #phd #research #proposal

Gearing up to secure funding for your research project? OR Applying for your PhD and need a Proposal? Crafting a compelling research proposal is your ticket to making a strong impression. Here's my detailed guide to help you put your best foot forward: 1. Start with a Strong Introduction: Your introduction is your chance to grab attention. Clearly state the problem your research aims to solve and why it matters. Think of it as your elevator pitch – concise, engaging, and to the point. 2. Define Your Objectives: Outline your research goals and objectives. What do you hope to achieve? Make sure they’re SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound). This helps funders understand the impact of your work. 3. Conduct a Literature Review: Show you’ve done your homework. Summarize the current state of research in your field and highlight gaps your project will fill. This demonstrates your knowledge and the necessity of your research. 4. Describe Your Methodology: Detail your research design and methods. Explain how you’ll collect and analyze data, and why you’ve chosen these methods. Be clear and thorough – funders need to see you have a solid plan. 5. Highlight Your Team : Introduce your research team and their expertise. Showcase previous work and successes to build credibility. Funders invest in people as much as they do in ideas. 6. Present a Realistic Budget: Break down your budget, explaining how funds will be allocated. Be transparent and realistic. Justify your expenses by linking them to your research activities and goals. 7. Outline the Impact: Discuss the potential impact of your research. Who will benefit and how? Highlight the broader implications and the value it will bring to the field, community, or society. 8. Include a Timeline: Provide a detailed timeline for your project. This shows you’ve planned your research carefully and can manage time effectively. Include key milestones and deliverables. 9. Proofread and Peer Review: Before submission, proofread your proposal meticulously. Consider having colleagues review it for clarity and coherence. Fresh eyes can catch errors you might miss. 10. Tailor to the Funder: Finally, customize your proposal to align with the specific interests and guidelines of the funding body. Show you’ve done your research on them too, and explain why your project is a perfect fit. Remember, a well-crafted proposal is not just about presenting your research. It's about telling a compelling story that convinces funders of its value and feasibility. Good luck, and happy writing! #ResearchFunding #GrantWriting #AcademicResearch #ResearchProposals #HigherEducation #FundingSuccess #ResearchTips #researchers #phd

🔹Tips for writing a winning GRANT PROPOSAL 🎯 Grant writing can feel overwhelming, but it is one of the most valuable skills you can develop. Phenny A. Omondi, MSc, and I began writing grant proposals during our undergraduate days at Universidad EARTH. Over the years, we’ve secured funding from organizations like the Mastercard Foundation, Wege Foundation, Clinton Foundation, Changes for Humanity, etc. to support the operations of a community-based organization we founded in Kenya (Kilimo Jijini). When I started graduate school, I further polished my grant writing skills by enrolling in a transformative 3-credit Grant Writing course taught by Dr. Jaret Daniels, and since then together with my advisor, we have submitted small and huge grant proposals worth millions of dollars to US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), etc. Here are some key lessons I’ve learned along the way: 1. Start early Give yourself time to brainstorm, draft, and revise. Rushed proposals often lack polish and clarity. 2. Know your audience Research the funding agency’s mission, priorities, and target outcomes. Align your goals with their vision. 3. Focus on impact Clearly state how your research will address a problem and make a meaningful difference. Highlight real-world applications. 4. Tell a compelling story Proposals aren’t just data - they’re narratives. Make your introduction engaging and persuasive. Show passion for your work. 5. Define clear objectives Be specific about what you want to achieve and how you’ll measure success. Funders want results, not vague ideas. 6. Plan a realistic budget Outline costs with transparency and accuracy. Avoid overestimating but don’t undersell what you need to succeed. 7. Highlight your team’s expertise Funders invest in people as much as ideas. Showcase your team’s qualifications and past successes. And how that adds value to your idea. 8. Provide a timeline Break down your project into phases with deadlines. A clear timeline shows you’ve thought through the process 9. Proofread and seek feedback Ask mentors or colleagues to review your draft. They can spot weaknesses and suggest improvements you may have missed. 10. Follow instructions Carefully read and follow the funding agency’s guidelines. Missing a formatting detail or word limit can disqualify your proposal. 👉 What’s your experience with grant writing? Repost ♻️ to help someone else! #GrantWritingTips #ResearchFunding #AcademicSuccess #Mentorship #STEMResearch #WomenInSTEM #ResearchProposals University of Florida

You hit apply. Now what? Ever wondered what happens behind the scenes after you submit your application? Let’s pull back the curtain and show you exactly what hiring teams see. (Screenshot using a test profile with private information redacted. This is Ashby's ATS) When recruiters say an ATS (Applicant Tracking System) is essentially a digital filing cabinet, this is what we mean. The moment you apply, a profile is created in the system based on the information you provide: your name, contact info, links, resume, and answers to application questions. From there, your profile is linked to the role(s) you applied for (on the left side of the screen in the example). 3 key things you need to know: 1️⃣ Everything is connected. Your profile houses all email correspondence, recruiter notes (which might include tagging hiring managers for input), interview feedback forms, and job application responses—all visible in one place. 2️⃣ Your resume is front and center. This is what hiring teams primarily see when deciding whether to move you forward (top right of the example). They can update your stage in the process or archive your profile if it’s not the right fit. 3️⃣ Your profile stays in the system. Even if you’re archived for one role, your profile doesn’t disappear. Each time you apply for a new opportunity, your existing profile is re-tagged to the new role. Okay, so what’s the takeaway? I want to remove the smoke and mirrors around the hiring process and show you what really happens when you press submit. There’s no secret formula to “beat” the ATS—once you apply, you're in the system. Unless you fail a knockout question from the information you enter in your application, your profile is viewable the second you submit. What does this mean for you? Your resume and the details you enter on your application matter. They directly impact how hiring teams assess your fit for the role. This also includes your job application questions. The best way to stand out: make your resume clear, relevant, and aligned with the job you’re applying for. Think about how you're marketing yourself and showcase the impact you've made and how that would add value to this company. I hope this helps demystify the process, even in a small way.

How can one get people to review their application documents in the most organized way? Where can one get the right reviewers? Week Six: Finding Reviewers and Receiving Quality Feedback My first drafts were chaotic. I had documents flying around on people’s WhatsApp, LinkedIn DMs, and emails. My reviewers sometimes gave conflicting advice, and I could not track who said what. You can avoid this chaos by adopting this approach I learned: 1) Create a draft—I started by writing a draft of my documents to the best of my ability, ensuring that I had proofread carefully and done my homework. Reviewers can only improve what exists. 2) Choose the right reviewers—I focused on: - People who recently got into similar programs (they know what works now) - Mentors, Peers, lecturers, or professors who understand my field (for depth and structure) - Writing experts or past scholarship alumni (to incorporate the proper tone, flow, and strategy) - I searched for reviewers in my immediate circle, on LinkedIn, scholarship platforms, and university alumni pages (I sent a polite message requesting their feedback and outlining all I have done) - In the initial stage, I limited it to 1–3 reviewers until I had a solid structure. This reduced conflicting feedback. 3) Provide context for the reviewers—After they agreed to review my documents, I sent them a brief message including: - Link to the draft - Program and scholarship details - Application deadline and link to the application page - Essay writing prompts, word limit, my CV, and other relevant documents - Sometimes I added a “What I need from you” line (e.g., content, tone, and structure first, not only grammar). I did not do this in the initial phase. 4) Stay organized while sharing documents—I used a simple system to track everything and avoid confusion: - I created a central Google Drive folder to enable live collaboration - Inside it, I created a subfolder for each document (SOP, CV, LOR, etc.) - For each reviewer, I duplicated the draft and renamed it, e.g.,    ✅ Jennifer_Agbo_SOP_for_Musa_Stanford_V1 or    ✅ Jennifer_Agbo_CV_for_Mentor_Amaka_V3 - I decided whether I wanted reviewers to comment or edit directly on the document (I asked their preference). Comment-only prevents reviewers from overwriting their work and keeps your voice intact - I kept each person’s comments separate, so I could compare feedback without losing my original draft. - I set deadlines for reviewers so they reply on time 5. Merge feedback—After receiving feedback: - I created a new version and renamed it to e.g., Jennifer_Agbo_SOP_Main - Combined the feedback that aligned with my story and goals - Kept older versions for reference in case I needed to revisit them - Thanked each reviewer for their time and support It may be challenging to find people to review your documents, but it is worth the effort. It makes your application more competitive. See you next week! #JenniferScholarshipSeries | 6 of 10