Continuing Student Central Fellowships for 2024-25

As in the past, there are two categories of awards:

1. Awards by departmental nomination

2. Awards by student application

Each of these is described separately below. This year’s deadline for both competition categories is Mar 8, 2024; awards will be announced by May 1, 2024.

By-Nomination Fellowships

There are two major fellowship types: (a) Dissertation-Level, and (b) General. Within each of these areas, an award may be merit only or merit-and-diversity. The fellowships are distributed across these categories as shown:

Eligibility details vary by award; these are specified on the cover sheets for each nomination. In selecting your nominees, note that greater priority will be given to students who have not received multiple years of central fellowship support, either through a multi-year recruitment award or through multiple one-year recruitment and/or continuing-student awards.

From 2023-24, departments no longer need to submit an additional ranking sheet for the Graduate Division Dissertation Fellowship, and the Humanities Research Assistantship Fellowship.

Support Package Details

2024-25 Continuing Student Fellowships will provide the following packages of financial support:

• Full-year fellowship stipend of $32,500 or one-quarter fellowship stipend of $10,834

• Payment of full resident level tuition, fees, and health insurance

Note that these fellowships do not include Non-Resident Supplemental Tuition.

Number of nominations per department

To see the number of available Continuing Student Fellowship Nomination for your department, please visit the Reports section in the GradPoint Financial Portal and review the “Graduate Division Allocations Report”. A user guide on this report can be found here.

Submission instructions

Departments can preview the pdf versions of the fellowship cover sheets by clicking the icons below. Nominations can be submitted electronically utilizing the DocuSign PowerForms that have been created for the competition (links below).

The PowerForms have a four step process:

1. The form initiator attaches the application materials (LOR is attached in step 2).

2. The initiator may attach the letter of recommendation or choose to route it to the faculty who will attach the letter of recommendation themselves. If the initiator is attaching the letter, enter the initiator name/email under "Student's Faculty Advisor who will submit letter of recommendation" in the DocuSign

3. The form is then routed to the department chair for signature approval of the complete application

4. Then finally to the Graduate Division for official entry into the competition.

The deadline for electronic submission to the Graduate Division is March 8, 2024.

PowerForm Link	Fellowship Cover Sheet PDF

PowerForm Link	Fellowship Cover Sheet PDF
Graduate Division Dissertation Fellowship PowerForm	Open
Humanities Research Fellowship Program PowerForm	Open
President’s Dissertation Year Fellowship PowerForm	Open
Graduate Opportunity Fellowship / Graduate Research Mentorship Program PowerForm	Open
President’s Pre-Professoriate Fellowship Powerform	Open

By-Student Application Fellowships

Eligible students may apply directly for the following set of fellowships: Olivia Long Converse, Brython Davis, Humanities/Social Science Research grant, Broida-Hirschfelder, and Kline awards.  Applications for these awards are posted on our website under Central Campus Fellowships. The deadline for electronic submission to the Graduate Division is also Mar 8, 2024.

If you have any questions about any aspect of the fellowship process, please contact Graduate Division Financial Unit (financial@graddiv.ucsb.edu).

Chart Listing Features of Each Fellowship Opportunity

Open

Rubrics for Fellowship Review

Graduate Division Dissertation Fellowship

For the 2024-25 competition year, we are asking members of the continuing fellowship selection committees to holistically review nominations by using the following rubric. We ask reviewers to provide scores of High, Medium, or Low for each of the four areas identified below and to record those rankings on a spreadsheet. Each of the four areas represent important aspects of nominees’ profiles that should be considered as part of their assessments. Reviewers are asked to determine whether each nominee scores as High, Medium, or Low generally for each area, not to provide a ranking for each attribute in each list. The lists of attributes are not intended to be exhaustive, nor will there be evidence of every attribute in every file. The lists are provided to help reviewers think broadly about each nominee. Rankings should be determined relative to other students in the nomination pool; reviewers should utilize all three scores (H/M/L). 

Once reviewers have completed their assessments, we ask them to take the entire file into account, and provide the overall scores for each candidate between 1.0 (high) and 4.0 (low). These scores are not to be mathematically derived from the H/M/L judgments, and we do not suggest any particular weighting of the four areas.

Rather, the decision on the numerical score should be informed by the holistic evaluation of the file including consideration of the H/M/L area rankings. Numerical scores will be recorded in App Review. 

We also ask reviewers to bring their spreadsheets to the committee meeting to use as a reference during the deliberation on nominees. The Graduate Division staff will lead a discussion on this rubric at the end of the committee meeting and consider whether to continue, discontinue, or modify it in future years.

Open

Graduate Opportunity Fellowship / GRMP

For the 2024-25 competition year, we are asking members of the continuing fellowship selection committees to holistically review nominations by filling out the following rubric. We ask reviewers to provide scores of High, Medium, or Low for each of  the four broad (and overlapping) areas identified below and to record those rankings on a spreadsheet. Each of the four areas represent important aspects of nominees’ profiles that should be considered as part of their assessments. Reviewers are asked to determine whether each nominee scores as High, Medium, or Low generally for each area, not to provide a ranking for each attribute in each list. The lists of attributes are not intended to be exhaustive, nor will there be evidence of every attribute in every file. The lists are provided to help reviewers think broadly about each nominee. Rankings should be determined relative to other students in the nomination pool; reviewers should utilize all three scores (H/M/L). 

Once reviewers have completed their assessments, we ask them to take the entire file into account, and provide the overall scores for each candidate between 1.0 (high) and 4.0 (low). These scores are not to be mathematically derived from the H/M/L judgments, and we do not suggest any particular weighting of the four areas.

Rather, the decision on the numerical score should be informed by the holistic evaluation of the file including consideration of the H/M/L area rankings. Numerical scores will be recorded in App Review.

We also ask reviewers to bring their spreadsheets to the committee meeting to use as a reference during the deliberation on nominees. The Graduate Division staff will lead a discussion on this rubric at the end of the committee meeting and consider whether to continue, discontinue, or modify it in future years.

Humanities Research Fellowship Program

For the 2024-25 competition year, we are asking members of the continuing fellowship selection committees to holistically review nominations by using the following rubric. We ask reviewers to provide scores of High, Medium, or Low for each of the four broad (and overlapping) areas identified below and to record those rankings on a spreadsheet. Each of the four areas represent important aspects of nominees’ profiles that should be considered as part of their assessments. Reviewers are asked to determine whether each nominee scores as High, Medium, or Low generally for each area, not to provide a ranking for each attribute in each list. The lists of attributes are not intended to be exhaustive, nor will there be evidence of every attribute in every file. The lists are provided to help reviewers think broadly about each nominee. Rankings should be determined relative to other students in the nomination pool; reviewers should utilize all three scores (H/M/L).

Once reviewers have completed their assessments, we ask them to take the entire file into account, and provide the overall scores for each candidate between 1.0 (high) and 4.0 (low). These scores are not to be mathematically derived from the H/M/L judgments, and we do not suggest any particular weighting of the four areas. Rather, the decision on the numerical score should be informed by the holistic evaluation of the file including consideration of the H/M/L area rankings. Numerical scores will be recorded in App Review.

We also ask reviewers to bring their spreadsheets to the committee meeting to use as a reference during the deliberation on nominees. The Graduate Division staff will lead a discussion on this rubric at the end of the committee meeting and consider whether to continue, discontinue, or modify it in future years.

President’s Dissertation Year Fellowship

For the 2024-25 competition year, we are asking members of the continuing fellowship selection committees to holistically review nominations using the following rubric. We ask reviewers to provide scores of High, Medium, or Low for each of the four broad (and overlapping) areas identified below and to record those rankings on a spreadsheet. Each of the four areas represent important aspects of nominees’ profiles that should be considered as part of their assessments. Reviewers are asked to determine whether each nominee scores as High, Medium, or Low generally for each area, not to provide a ranking for each attribute in each list. The lists of attributes are not intended to be exhaustive, nor will there be evidence of every attribute in every file. The lists are provided to help reviewers think broadly about each nominee. Rankings should be determined relative to other students in the nomination pool; reviewers should utilize all three scores (H/M/L).

Once reviewers have completed their assessments, we ask them to take the entire file into account, and provide the overall scores for each candidate between 1.0 (high) and 4.0 (low). These scores are not to be mathematically derived from the H/M/L judgments, and we do not suggest any particular weighting of the four areas.

Rather, the decision on the numerical score should be informed by the holistic evaluation of the file including consideration of the H/M/L area rankings. Numerical scores will be recorded in App Review.

We also ask reviewers to bring their spreadsheets to the committee meeting to use as a reference during the deliberation on nominees. The Graduate Division staff will lead a discussion on this rubric at the end of the committee meeting and consider whether to continue, discontinue, or modify it in future years.