The Unofficial SMART Scholarship Forum

Larry,

I've posted on here before about my experience with the SMART program. Like others, my experience was frustrating and negative. It is my hope that you do not consider my statements in the other thread as an "anonymous attack." They are honest and factual, and reflect real problems that I experienced in SMART - with my SF, with the SMART office, and with the service liaison. These are issues that must be addressed if all of the parties vested in SMART want it to be successful.

You asked about us (the disappointed -- perhaps former -- participants) to name our SFs. I'm not convinced I want to do this just yet as it could be identifying - and I'm not sure of the potential ramifications. Please note though, I spoke to my SF, to the service liaison, and to the SPO, and was nothing short of professional in attempt to address my situation (I should in fact not be anonymous based on this alone). As I stated before in another thread, I felt like everyone was more interested in sticking their head in the sand than to address it. I made phone calls, I wrote emails, I wrote letters, I even interviewed with another potential SF on my own. I was very proactive. I would encourage all applicants and participants to be proactive as well -- but, we have to realize - a single person trying to move a boulder when they are stripped of all tools and help is still an impossible thing to do.

I have to take issue with you bringing up the Hirsch Index. I can believe the NRL has made numerous contributions in technical fields. However, I do not believe you can compare private industry / commercial firms on this metric alone. Many private companies / corporations do not publish their work outside of their organization. R&D is a significant investment for a corporation. Why would they publish all of their work, when it may mean it could be a serious competitive advantage, and basically loose that initial investment to a competitor?

But, since it was brought up, let's look at the Hirsch index to some say, Air Force SFs listed on the SMART website. Sure, the NRL's may be high - but what about (and I am just pulling these based on the description I read from the website):
-Hanscom AFB
-Robins AFB
-Ogden Air Logistics Center
-Tinker AFB

These are not AFRL sites - these are Air Force Life Cycle Management sites. As best as I can tell, they do not partake in any research. They claim to do engineering work, which may be fine, but based on my experience (and the experience of others listed on this forum), I would take a guess that many serious engineering projects at these centers are outsourced to a contractor and there is a good chance that a participant at one of these sites, perhaps depending on the organization / office they work for, will not be doing any engineering work - certainly nothing like SMART advertises. Maybe there are happy scholars there, but for those of us that bought into and believed SMARTs advertising, there's a good chance that will not be the case.

You know, we talk a lot about on this forum about applications and participants being proactive. This is very true, but I think the SPO needs to be proactive themselves in determining which SFs should be able to select from applicants. This scholarship should not be a one-way street.

I think we could narrow down the list considerably based on some factors alone:

-If the organization requires employees to take DAU (Defense Acquisition University) classes, chances are the organization is acquisitions - not technical based. Nix them from the list.
-It sounded like from this forum there were some govt R&D jobs - and that they were on a different payscale than GS. If there are truly no researchers working under GS, why is SMART allowing any GS-based SF on the list? This seems like a good screening tool.
-If an organization regularly interacts with the DLA, it is likely acquisitions based, and should not be on the SF list.
-If an organization only has a budget to buy Skilcraft products and paper, and only the ability to write contracts, it should not be on the SF list. Most normal engineering offices - private industry - at the university, etc, are routinely buying hardware and software to do their jobs.
-If an organization has had numerous scholars either quit in Phase 2, or does not have good retention in Phase 3, it may need to be removed from the list.
-If an organization does not have its own lab space, it should be removed from the list. It is clear they are not prototyping or running experiments.
-If an organization does not own any technical engineering hardware or software (or a very limited license pool) - that is to say, all job responsibilities are conducted through MS Office and painful / awkward internal webpages, it should be removed from the list.

An organization should not be on the list simply because they say they can hire from the talent pool SMART provides. SMART needs to make sure it is upholding its end of the bargain too.

@larry My post was not meant as an attack on SMART or even as feedback to the SMART administration. This was meant for other potential applicants. But since I have the attention of an SES and the SMART administration I will give you my feedback/advice:

I think the disconnect between SMART and the SFs stems from both orgs having different objectives. SMART is trying to get the best students into the government. The best-of-the-best are going to Google/Facebook, not the government. But there is a tier of students below the very best-of-the-best (which is where I think I fit in) who are being accepted into SMART. For the most part, mission accomplished by SMART.

On the other hand, the goal of most SFs is to get as many warm bodies as possible. It doesn't matter if they are A+ students or C students. As long as you have a degree, SFs want you because it means that that SF will get bigger piece of the funding pie.

I do not know the solution. SFs are going to say that their SMART Scholars are doing great work regardless. It is all part of the charade.

So here is my advice: (1) Be more transparent with applicants. Allowing students to intern with their SF before officially accepting the scholarship is a great idea. (2) I don't see it in the handbook now so maybe it was removed, but the handbook used to say that recipients could not ask to change their SF. Only the SF could initialize the change. Something about conflict of interest. Because of this I did not request to change my SF. If this is still SMART's policy it should be changed. If you want to find out which SFs are no good then make it easy for recipients to tell you.

PS Your email address is plastered all over the internet. Posting it in one more place isn't going to stop the spam.

--------------
I think @Fitzsimmons makes a very good point. Is NRL is one SF or do a bunch of SFs fall under NRL? If it is the latter then Larry was being a bit misleading when boasting about NRL's h-index. Clarification by Larry is needed.

--------------
@MC_EE seems to be going into the whole process with realistic expectations and I have little doubt he or she will be, at the very least, satisfied with their SF.

I may have been naive to believe that I would be working on exciting, cutting-edge research. But I only thought that because that was what SMART told me.

--------------
Finally, I think a thread where people can post only good experiences would be valuable to applicants. But I think it would need to be strictly moderated to prevent flaming by disgruntled recipients or bogus posts by SFs. Posts should have to say degree, SF, what you liked, and why. As I said in my first post, I think the primary reason why recipients like their SF is because they become complacent with the culture of laziness within the government.

Fitzsimmons wrote:@MC_EE not to discount your opinion, but phase 1 is great for most people. I really hope phase 2 goes off without a hitch for you. Others have not been so lucky.

He'll want to make sure that he's working in the same group post graduation, and not moved across the base to the "menial labor" department. And if someone does move him over there, he should take personal, proactive, action to move elsewhere.

@MC_EE not to discount your opinion, but phase 1 is great for most people. I really hope phase 2 goes off without a hitch for you. Others have not been so lucky.

I can say that, if my internship was indicative of what working for my SF will be like, I will be happy.

They've paid for two years of school, plus a stipend. This has allowed me to spend time with my S/O, friends, and actually stay on top of school. I was also able to pay off one of my student loans already, because I budgeted my ISP and stipend well.

Yes, there were some hiccups. For instance, I was never issued a CAC because my SF was unable to work around the fact that I was not either an employee or a contractor. That was unnecessary though, because the other engineers in my lab provided whatever I needed. Also, there were definitely slow days, because the engineers would be working on writing reports about the tests we had conducted, so I would spend my time getting familiar with the equipment. There was also the whole face-to-face-with-a-black-widow-spider-in-the-porta-shitters-because-our-lab-was-a-glorified-garage-with-no-running-water thing, but that's not related to SMART.

Quite frankly, yes there have been hiccups, but not to the point that I regret that I signed the contract. My SF seems pretty solid overall, so unless they royally screw me over somehow (which I trust they won't), I'll be happy.

You'll have to forgive me, because I'm not sure if NRL is a single SF or if all Navy SFs fall under NRL. I don't work for the Navy.

The h-index is one metric. I'm less likely to be swayed by that than what I have seen first-hand. That said, I'm aware that NRL has made significant contributions to a number of fields.

I don't feel that the OP's comments constituted an anonymous attack. They gave the good and the bad of the scholarship, which echoed the sentiments of a lot of other scholars.

Anyone who has had a great experience in the SMART program is welcome to post on this forum. I've never seen a post from someone who was ecstatic that they signed on with SMART. I've seen a lot of neutral to slightly negative, and some very negative (like my own).

A good point - where are those who read this site and happy working?

However, I tend to put the anonymous attacks against unnamed organizations in the "get in line category". The Hirsch Index of the Naval Research Laboratory is 269. I think you'll find that higher than ANY commercial firm, and in line with the top academic institutions in the world. So, blanket statements/anecdotes about government researchers are easily pushed aside.

Having said that I'm painfully away of what stupid people will do, and what young employees will suffer through because they don't know better.

Always happy to hear both the good and the bad... larry dot schuette AT navy doot mil (i hate spammers :)

Personally, I understand why people would be hesitant to give up their SF. Even after leaving the job, I probably wouldn't want to make it obvious where I worked.

Anyway, instead of listing the multitude of SF's that make SMART scholars spend their commitment updating spreadsheets and sweeping floors, it seems like it would be much more efficient to list the ones that actually do R&D. That would be a shorter list, and it would help future SMART's know where to apply.

I'm pretty critical of what comes out of the SMART Program. I've had my career impacted by the SMART Program, and hate to see them do that to more students year in and year out.

But Larry has yet to speak an untruth, IMO.

I have been working for a contractor for several years now doing awesome R&D work. I have interfaced with government employees in all of the services and I can support what larry is saying here. There are SOME (S&T/R&D) who are actually doing hands on the bench awesome research. It is not a mythical creature (govey who is doing research), they do exist. Not common, but they're out there.

You could help all by telling us the facility you worked at and the (menial) tasks that you performed. Given that you'll never, ever, ever go back there you shouldn't hesitate to name the facility/division/branch/section. That will keep them from hiring someone who reads this forum.

My goal is to force the services to recognize the disconnect and to only put SMART scholars into locations that do S&T/R&D.

Your feedback is helpful. Better feedback would be even more helpful!

There is a lot of negativity about the SMART Scholarship here and elsewhere around the Internet. Mostly only people with a strong opinion one way or the other are being heard. My time in SMART is over and I want to share my experience and offer the advice I wish I had heard before accepting the scholarship. This is my honest assessment of the SMART Scholarship based on my experiences and talking to other SMART scholars.

TL;DR – Go into SMART with realistic expectations. I was not thrilled with SMART, but if I could go back I would accept the scholarship again.

I accepted the scholarship for 2 years with a 2 year service agreement. SMART paid for my Master's degree in Electrical Engineering. My SF was a medium-size base with a large civilian workforce. My commitment ended several months ago I quit the following week.

For me, the scholarship has been good and bad. While in school, the money was great. The income allowed me to focus on school while still having a social life. I was able to travel which would have been impossible otherwise. I graduated with very little debt and was able to pay it off immediately with the money I had saved. The freedom of being debt free cannot be overstated.

SMART promises interesting work for scholars; however, more likely than not, you will be bored. Very bored. My work mostly consisted of editing spreadsheets. Other SMART scholars who I have talked to say the same thing – the work is not interesting or challenging. I had weeks at a time without any work at all.

The job is not stressful. The atmosphere is laid back. When you go home you do not have to think about work at all. I never had to work overtime or do homework. This is exactly the kind of job most adults are looking for but it is not what I signed up for and this is not how I want to spend my time. I could have worked there for the next 40 years and retire. The idea of working there for my whole career makes sick to my stomach.

I am just starting my career. I am motivated. I want to work hard and work on interesting, significant things but I did not see an opportunity to do that at my SF. I believe this is true for most SFs. Contractors do most of the real work and federal employees oversee the contractors. When there is real work to be done it is half-assed so everyone can go back to browsing Facebook as quickly as possible. I traveled to a few other bases around the country and I have found the same atmosphere and work ethic everywhere. Unfortunately, my experience is not unique.

In my opinion, the recipients who are happy with SMART have become complacent. They like that the work is easy. There is plenty of free time. The money is okay, not great. There is time for other things. This is all well and good if that is what you want, but it is not how the SMART Scholarship is advertised.

The scholarship is setup to be a bait and switch. Applicants are baited with the promise of cutting-edge, meaningful research, but most people end up doing menial work.

While I was not happy with working in the government, I have to put things in perspective. Most people do not like their first job. Most people change jobs several times before finding one they like. For me the commitment was only 2 years. Without the scholarship it would have taken me longer to pay off student loans. The freedom I had while in school was liberating and allowed me to focus on classes while still having a social life.

For me, the pros outweigh the cons. If I could go back in time I would still accept the scholarship.

Thanks for reading! This has been cathartic to write. If you still want to apply for SMART good luck! You will have a better experience if you go into it with realistic expectations.