Reviewer comments on my NIH proposal have come back, and the substantive comments make me smile. One of the weaknesses: potential problems associated with the measurement of population mobility. Bingo. I had submitted this proposal before I had finished the article manuscript I submitted in the summer, which sketches the relationship between mobility and graduation measures to a greater degree than my proposal.
Fortunately, one key measure I intend to use for the Georgia historical work—proportion of school life spent in high school—is not nearly as sensitive to migration as either graduation or net flow estimates. In addition, I could look at the estimates of the various items as curves (in a migration-to-indicator plane) instead of point estimates.
The priority score (221) and the percentile (41.5) are consistent with the text recommendation for further consideration with a “very good” label. The program-level decision on funding is in October, so I wouldn’t hear back (on a rejection) soon enough to turn around a revision until the February deadline.
Historical note: see August 2004 entry where I discuss the first round of reviews.
And now it’s off to do various mundane things…
Categories
Archives by date
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | |||||