The Unofficial SMART Scholarship Forum

by **recipient21** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:08 pm

Guess wrote:I've got some bad news for you, recipient21. My agency's take is that they will only pay for you to take classes (if they are related to your job), not get a degree. This is true for all of the Long Term Training programs available within the DoD that I'm aware of. This is fine for a bachelor's or even most master's programs, but if you want to get a Ph.D., you have to foot the bill yourself for the year+ of dissertation research credits.

That's what most people in the entire world have to work with. It's reality. Be grateful they pay for your coursework because as a student, you have to pay for both coursework AND the year+ of dissertation research credits.

Nothing wrong with SMART trying to maximize their return by sending a 22 year old to graduate school instead of a mid-30's technician. That technician will likely be retiring in 20 years, while the student has a good 30-40 years left in him/her.

by **Guess** » Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:58 am

There's plenty of other options to go back to school for retention candidates.

I've got some bad news for you, recipient21. My agency's take is that they will only pay for you to take classes (if they are related to your job), not get a degree. This is true for all of the Long Term Training programs available within the DoD that I'm aware of. This is fine for a bachelor's or even most master's programs, but if you want to get a Ph.D., you have to foot the bill yourself for the year+ of dissertation research credits.

And btw, the "aging workforce" that they want to replace includes a lot of Ph.D. researchers at the labs.

I'm not trying to take away from your award, since you likely deserve it. Just providing a different perspective from someone that has researched this issue.

by **recipient21** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:28 am

Guest22 wrote:I have heard unofficially through my SF POC that retention candidates have in fact been given reduced priority. Whereas in the past, I was told that a certain number of spots were saved exclusively for retention candidates. I believe this policy has seen an about-face that is likely the result of some of the new management of the SMART program. We've been seeing a lot of changes, and this is one of them. It's not just people talking on the forum. It's true.

I'm a recruitment participant. I'm glad the SMART Program saw that retention candidates should be just fine getting their own advanced degrees (because most retention candidates who are interested in the scholarship already have at least a BS). There's plenty of other options to go back to school for retention candidates. If the SMART Program has a goal of replacing an aging workforce, then recruitment candidates are more deserving when funds become limited. I'm actually shocked to hear the old NPS management had a number of slots each year reserved for retention candidates.

If your facility has a need for you to get an advanced degree, then let them pay you to go get the degree. No need for OSD to foot the bill to better your specific facility.

It sounds like new SMART management wants to stop bending over backwards for DoD facilities. My facility selected SMART students because they were free summer labor. That's not right, and neither is offering SMART scholarships to current DoD facilities who just want to send their employees to school on another department's dime. The SMART Program in the past discussed raising the GPA requirements for students because the scholarship was so selective. It sounds to me like they're also now raising the bar for the facilities within the DoD. Requiring more justification and commitment of them. Good news.

by **Guest22** » Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:46 am

Guest wrote:
gatsby wrote:What about all of the rejected retention candidates though?.. you're senario doesn't really make sense when you consider that a retention candidate already has a position in the DOD.
Do you work for the DoD?

I believe a retention candidate gets a new position at the completion of his/her degree. It's an actual brand new position. Most retention candidates are in a "slot" that cannot accommodate a drastic change such as the conferral of an advanced degree, and therefore need a new slot created for them. Hiring freezes also eliminate that movement, as new positions cannot be created. It sounds dumb, but the govt often does "dumb" things.

As well, the whole "increased retention candidate rejection" that supposedly happened this year apparently has only been acknowledged on this forum. I don't really give it that much credence.

I have heard unofficially through my SF POC that retention candidates have in fact been given reduced priority. Whereas in the past, I was told that a certain number of spots were saved exclusively for retention candidates. I believe this policy has seen an about-face that is likely the result of some of the new management of the SMART program. We've been seeing a lot of changes, and this is one of them. It's not just people talking on the forum. It's true.

by **Guest** » Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:33 pm

And I'm sorry you didn't get the award.

by **Guest** » Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:32 pm

gatsby wrote:What about all of the rejected retention candidates though?.. you're senario doesn't really make sense when you consider that a retention candidate already has a position in the DOD.

Do you work for the DoD?

I believe a retention candidate gets a new position at the completion of his/her degree. It's an actual brand new position. Most retention candidates are in a "slot" that cannot accommodate a drastic change such as the conferral of an advanced degree, and therefore need a new slot created for them. Hiring freezes also eliminate that movement, as new positions cannot be created. It sounds dumb, but the govt often does "dumb" things.

As well, the whole "increased retention candidate rejection" that supposedly happened this year apparently has only been acknowledged on this forum. I don't really give it that much credence.

by **gatsby** » Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:51 pm

What about all of the rejected retention candidates though?.. you're senario doesn't really make sense when you consider that a retention candidate already has a position in the DOD.

by **Guest** » Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:48 pm

I know the knee-jerk reaction is "Budget cuts caused the reduction" but I'm not so certain.

I've had lots of talks with SMART Program management folks and I'd guess the decision to reduce the scholar count is actually the result of the SMART Program telling the SFs "Get real... You are only allowed to select scholars you KNOW you can hire in 1/2/3/4/5 years." The funding of SMART scholars is likely SF funding limited (for phase 2 participation) rather than SPO funding limited.

I think the OSD finally held the SFs accountable and you saw SFs actually go through the paperwork and find out that their HQ would only approve the hiring of 1 scholar, rather than 12.

All these stories leaking out about "My SF called me and their funding was cut from 12 scholars to 1" could easily fit this scenario. The SF may have selected 12 scholars annually in the past, but the new OSD management is likely looking to close loopholes like ACTEDs offers and other hiring mechanisms other than the assigned service commitment that is promised to SMART students upon graduation.

When the SFs went back to their drawing boards and brought their respective command HQs into the decision making, their HQ would say "We likely won't have the money for your 12 scholars in 2 years.... pick 1 and we'll guarantee we can hire him/her." So you see a SF that used to select 12 students, only was able to get 1.

The Unofficial SMART Scholarship Forum

130 Scholars for 2012?

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: 130 Scholars for 2012?

Re: 130 Scholars for 2012?

Re: 130 Scholars for 2012?

Re: 130 Scholars for 2012?

Re: 130 Scholars for 2012?

Re: 130 Scholars for 2012?

Re: 130 Scholars for 2012?

Re: 130 Scholars for 2012?

130 Scholars for 2012?