The Unofficial SMART Scholarship Forum

I don't want to get ahead of the SMART Program Manager, but last week she met with her team and the government reps from the services.

I don't expect current SMART Phase 1 or Phase 2 to see much in the way of changes except a quicker turn around on questions. They will be creating an updated FAQ and responding to questions on this forum by official channels.

Future scholars may see changes, but that's really for the service reps and the SPM to decide and make known.

ATB
Larry

And Happy Veterans Day!

I'd like to try to revive this thread...

Larry,

Any updates on the progress of program changes being discussed or implemented?

Thank you

If the facility you want to work at has "direct hire authority" (all of the "Demonstration Labs" should have it) then in theory your future supervisor can get you hired without going through USAJOBS.

This is not a SMART issue, but rather one for the HRO office where you are trying to move to.

ATB
Larry

Thank you for the advice Larry.
Since you're on here now, perhaps I can get some clarity on something I've been wondering (and a question I asked previously on the board, but went unanswered).
If one transfers after starting phase 2, can you do a transfer through the direct hiring authority, or do you have to do a competitive hire? One issue I've had in the (recent) past is that there didn't seem to be any competitive positions opening up as there is a more recent focus on postdoc programs.
(We could continue the conversation via PM to not hijack the thread).

[quote="frustSMART"]Maximus another thing to consider is that some of the complaints are coming from people not in a DoD lab, but instead in a different type of position (e.g., an acquisition position). I think the communication by Larry is welcome. I personally messed my situation up by listening to the wrong people, thus despite having to pay back some money after leaving early I'll probably end up doing that so I can look for a research position (which is unfortunate given I would have been willing to stay in a research position in the govt if I had the opportunity).
I think more clear leadership and answers for scholars in tough situations may be a good answer to problems in the future.[/quote]

I highly recommend finding a research position within DOD and transferring to it. There are such positions in all three services at their Labs (eg, ARL, AFRL, NRL) and at their engineering centers (RDECOM, ERDC, Navy Warfare Centers). If you can get hired by one of them, you can get your SMART commitment transferred.

Maximus another thing to consider is that some of the complaints are coming from people not in a DoD lab, but instead in a different type of position (e.g., an acquisition position). I think the communication by Larry is welcome. I personally messed my situation up by listening to the wrong people, thus despite having to pay back some money after leaving early I'll probably end up doing that so I can look for a research position (which is unfortunate given I would have been willing to stay in a research position in the govt if I had the opportunity).
I think more clear leadership and answers for scholars in tough situations may be a good answer to problems in the future.

I completed a one year commitment then left. I'll be leaving my employer next year to go back to school again, and I'm planning on rolling my 401K back into my TSP account because the lifecycle funding is so cheap.

Still debating if I should cash out my FERS credit.

Well, the good news is that the FERS and TSP retirement systems are totally portable. There is no reason to stick around after your commitment if you don't think it's in your best interest.

Larry,

I agree with those 2 questions being key to evaluating the program. I would be interested in comparing recipients of the SMART Scholarship with recipients of the NDSEG Fellowship. Since the NDSEG is basically SMART without the service commitment, I would be curious if NDSEG Fellows, on their own, have tended more towards careers in the DoD following graduation.

And, maybe there's a middle ground where a scholarship program (SMART or NDSEG) requires internships during schooling, but does not require a post-graduation commitment (though, leaves open an opportunity if the student wants it). This gives students a clear look into DoD labs, while leaving the decision up to them upon graduation. Even though you may end up with less students joining labs than SMART (currently), the ones who do join would likely be much more enthusiastic/dedicated employees, which is really what the gov't should strive to have at all ranks...not just warm bodies. Or, alternatively, perhaps consider a 1 year "probationary" period when joining SMART, where the student has the right to leave the program (no payback required) after they have completed an internship and seen more clearly what they would be doing.

The reality is that a lot can change for any student from the time they commit to SMART to the time they graduate. Maybe their career interests change, maybe their personal circumstances change, etc etc. Ultimately, for some, the DoD may just not be a good fit after all. But, rather than try to "fight" the system, the student may just resolve to continue their gov't work simply because it brings a steady paycheck. Then, in 20 years, we're all left with mediocre DoD leadership from those who worked up the ranks "just because". Not something I would really look forward to as a US citizen!

I'll need to dig out how that number is calculated (eg, after what period) and get back to you.

There really are only a couple of questions regarding SMART:

1) Are the people we are attracting via SMART of higher quality than those we attract through other means?

2) Do they stay longer?

Both questions imply knowledge of workforce recruitment and retention. I don't have that data handy.

ATB
Larry

Larry,

I wanted to thank you for joining the the board. It has been years since someone from the program office has posted anything.

I'm also interested in how the retention number is calculated. This is the first time I've heard an actual value.

Chris

Larry,
How is that retention rate measured, i.e., how long after the commitment ends do you count count a scholar as staying on or not? 85% is much higher that I would have expected if the retention is measured, say, at one year after commitment ends.

I agree with previous comments you made about how potential recipients should try to do an internship before receiving any money from the SMART program, and I think this would help lower the number of students that leave the program early. I certainly had misconceptions about working for the DoD when I applied for and accepted the scholarship. Doing an internship the summer before I started the program would have helped me avoid making a big mistake.

IIRC we are going to collect debt on (potentially) as much as 6% of the SMART population.

I think that's way to high, and hope to drive that number to near zero over the next few years. But it's only 6% and something approaching 85% of SMART Scholars stay on after their commitment period. Hopefully those who are unhappy in their SF will work to find new homes at other DOD Labs. I'm always happy to help with that.

Students who manage their careers well do well in SMART. That's not to criticize young folks eager to get their schooling paid for (which is pretty "SMART"), but perhaps they needed to have a more eyes wide open approach. I do fault the sponsoring facilities for not being SMART in how they manage their students, and I'm very critical of the lack of communication from the SMART office.

We'll be fixing things on a number of fronts...
Best
Larry

Hi Larry. First of all I want to say that I (and all of us) are very grateful for the information and communication you are providing. This is the kind of thing a program like this needs in order to maximize its effectiveness.

Secondly, on this forum people have posted some horror stories about the damage that SMART has done to their career, but obviously there is some voluntary response bias. From what I can see, I'm counting only about 20 or so people that have posted these awful stories, and SMART sponsors hundreds of students each year. Would you be able to comment on whether or not you think SMART in general is damaging people's careers or enhancing them? And if the horror stories we're seeing on here are only a very small minority?

Lastly I'm glad to hear that program changes are underway. I can't imagine that the people who originally created this program had it in mind to do the kind of damage to promising students' careers as it has to some. Any and all updates as these changes occur will be greatly appreciated. Also maybe its time to think about creating an official smart forum? What you're doing on here is voluntary and greatly appreciated, but it would be very helpful to require more open communication lines to people within the administrative staff of the program for voicing concerns publicly.

I find it counter-normal that we hold folks at a SF that the SMART Scholar doesn't want to be at.

If the SMART Scholar can find a new position and both facilities are agreeable than I think it would be natural to approve the change. I can't imagine having an employee that wanted to be elsewhere and not helping get where they want to be.

I talked to the new SMART Program Officer last week and she had similar thoughts.

This is a decision for the individual Service, the facilities and the scholar - not the SMART Program Office.

Larry

Larry,

I appreciate the work you do to make the program more transparent. I was wondering if you could push through an adjustment to the change of sponsoring facility when in phase 2. Some of use are engineers assigned to places that have no use for us. However, SMART will not allow us to transfer to a facility that has a need for us. Is it possible to make it easier for transfers, especially when the participant finds and secures their own job.

Thanks,
Ready for the End

The Office of Naval Research was asked 18 months ago by ASDR&E to take on the day-to-day management of the SMART Program. It's taken that long to work through the transition but last month a Navy Program Manager assumed responsibility.

She is doing a fantastic job of laying out where we are, and more importantly where we want to go. She's doing this in concert with OSD and the Services and I am very excited.

When the prior SMART Program Manager mentioned this forum I joined. I was horrified by the silence. I understand why they didn't feel they could communicate, but I didn't agree with it.

You will slowly see the changes, but they are already occurring. For example, I learned yesterday that there are 5 students who have not onboarded post CY 14 graduation. Some are within the 60 day window that SMART promises but I find that way too long. Senior Leaders in each of the Services and the head of OSD ASDR&E are now aware and I believe will quickly lean into to ask why (This is not SMART per se, but rather HR processes). When Tier 2 and Tier 3 SES ask why, things usually get resolved.

ATB
Larry

I just wanted to drop in and make a comment. I'm a 2011 cohort that just moved into Phase II and I have been on the forum at least once a week all the way back to before I even applied to SMART.

I'm really glad to see some representation from SMART on the forum nowadays.

Larry, I wish you had been around when I was in Phase I.The lack of communication prior to you showing up has really given SMART a black eye...I mean, the late/partial payments and on-the-fly policy changes haven't helped either, but the silence! Oy Vey!

If this is the new approach that SMART is taking, i.e. open and regular communication, then I think the program may have turned the corner and might really be starting to improve.

You nicely articulated what I believe to be the fundamental flaw with SMART. We've created a system that is at odds with how the real world operates. We are trying to / we are working to fix that flaw.

Having said that, each service has committed to hiring the SMART scholars that they elected to sponsor. As always the devil is in the details.

Larry

makes sense, thanks for taking the time and effort to explain further.

So someone in the pentagon is making decisions to commit to hire a SMART scholar, and then 2 years later when the scholar is ready to graduate either the original person or a new person in that same position decides against hiring a SMART scholar? How often does this scenario happen? I know of a couple instances (one mentioned in another thread that's active today).

I suppose it's a question of labels...

The Base Commander is a figure head wrt civilian personnel. When someone says the Base CO doesn't want to hire, what they mean is that the central personnel office has a freeze on hiring. And then, the civilian authority chain freezes, or unfreezes hiring and the Base CO looks like he is in charge. Trust me, he's not the enabler or the roadblock. These commitments are made and bound at the pentagon, not in the field. The Base CO is the bearer of good, or bad news...

Larry

base commanders do not select employees, but they are a signature that needs to approve hiring actions in many circumstances.


All it takes is a base commander saying "I don't want to hire ANYONE" and SMART is left on the outside looking in. SMART cannot force ANY DoD organization to hire if that org doesn't want to hire. Then, the SMART scholar is browbeaten with repayment threats when it was no fault of their own that a new colonel showed up and decided SMART scholars are unnecessary.

I can think of about 10 ways to manage a "Scholarship for Service" program.

The model we are currently using wouldn't have been my first choice (or maybe even in the top three). But, we have a group of committed students in the program, and thus any changes have to be factored against a timeline/phasing plan.

The statute doesn't currently allow FFRDC and as you know Congress makes the law, not the Executive Branch. I don't see FFRDCs having the same challenge of hiring folks that the government labs do, and thus adding them in wouldn't be my first "must change" for SMART.

I do like the NSF Cyber Corp model (which is similar to what you described) and it's one we are aware of, and contemplating.

I know of no service that allows a Base Commander to select employees. Fortunately the people decisions are made at the lowest level of supervision, with approval granted at higher levels. For SMART Scholars this works well - we let the folks in the trenches select their employees, and then we use the "Direct Hire" authority provided by SMART at the Service HQ level to enable their hire.

Best
Larry

In reality, SMART would be better off adopting an SFS-like model.

Partner with targeted STEM universities, offer the scholarship to a number of students based on forecasting models taking into account number of participating SFs, overall anticipated need, etc. Hold off on hiring decisions until the end of a student's schooling period. At which point, those students would need to scour USAJobs, go to a SMART-only career fair, etc. and accept an employment opportunity with a government or [b][u]FFRDC[/u][/b] (usually contractor status) as long as they are presented with a reasonable job offer. As an aside, why SMART doesn't offer students to FFRDCs is a big, gigantic, question mark with the program that most in government and academia can't understand. That green stripe on the CAC is not as big a deal as SMART makes it out to be. A STEM graduate who is helping and serving the government and nation is a STEM graduate who is helping and serving the government. Period.

With the frontend commitment of the current SMART model, too many scholars feel they've been duped after several disappointments into their committment. SFs who are not accustomed to onboarding students through a scholarship commitment cannot participate in the program, because there's no mechanism in place to "commit" themselves to hiring a student 3 years before they have a degree. Base commanders change in that time period, and may decide they won't participate in SMART.

Whereas if the details employment question was held off until the end of schooling or the beginning of each summer internship period, (but a broader employment requirement was still in force) the students would be more free to navigate into the job that suits them, SFs would be more free to "try" before they buy (via non-binding summer internships).

Contrast SFS to the current SMART and you see things like scholarship award notifications delayed, delayed, delayed, delayed. When they finally do show up, the student is given about a week to decide if they want it or not. It all comes down to forcing something that shouldn't be forced, and doesn't necessarily HAVE to be forced (as can be seen by the success of other government scholarship for service programs).

As someone on the inside, I'd go one level of indenture further on the comments above: find your future boss and get a job working for them prior to accepting a SMART Scholarship. Free money is worth a lot, but it's not everything. We have a wide range of positions in the DoD research community. Don't assume that because you have been hired with an advance degree that it's with the super cool & exciting group (that you found on the web) at that location. Verify.

Some locations only hire folks who have worked as interns. This "Try before you buy" works to the advantage of the student and the employer.

I'll also emphasize again: don't drop out and think Uncle Sam isn't going to come after you. He maybe slow, but he is persistent and eventually he'll find you.

I've reviewed every posting on this website, and I greatly appreciate the input and the insight.

Larry