Writing a Great HET Proposal

By Jason Wright with some additions by Mike Eracleous

Last updated on 05/15/2024 by Mike Eracleous

Disclaimer: Following these instructions is advisable, but it does not guarantee that your proposal will be successful.

PSU HET time can be quite competitive, with oversubscription ratios of 2 or higher,  especially for scarce P0 and P1 time. Because of this, a lot of meritorious science will  not get the time it requested, or even any time at all.  

As with proposals to any time allocation committee, this means that committee members will select proposals not just based on their technical feasibility and scientific importance  but on how well justified the science is, whether they are personally excited about the  science, how well the proposal is written, and harder to define subjective criteria. Writing  a winning proposal is not, then, just a matter of describing your science well, but of  conveying to the committee your own sense of excitement and importance of the work.  Doing this well is an art.  

To illustrate this: consider two proposals, both alike in worthiness, in fair Davey Laboratory where we lay our scene of the TAC deliberations. Forced to choose between  them for the last 2 hours of P0 time, the committee cannot help but consider these factors:  

Following the directions and making the proposal easy to read

One proposal has 12 point font throughout, 1 page of figures and references, and all  the text stays in the box.  Moreover, the figures are clear and clearly labeled in large fonts that are easy to read. The proposer has read the instructions and filled out all sections of the form thoughtfully and according to the instructions

The other has some pages with smaller fonts (figure captions and references) and illegible spreadsheet entries, violates the page limits, and has text bleeding outside of the boxes. Moreover, the figures have been shrunk to fit in the available space and their labels have become illegible. The TAC gets the sense that the proposers are trying to unfairly include more information than other proposers were allowed to include, and also that the proposers are not giving the proposal preparation process its due attention.  Moreover some sections of the proposal have been filled out correctly or include information that was not requested, giving the TAC the impression that the proposers did not read the instructions carefully.

Justifying the request for time

HET time is precious, and the TAC needs to know how much you really need to  succeed.  

One proposal has a signal to noise calculation rooted in the underlying science. The  TAC has a good sense of where the number comes from. The contingency section has  a careful description of what would happen if the proposal got, say half the time  requested.

The other is requesting visits to ten targets with no prioritization, with exposure times  calculated for SNR of 100, with no justification for that number.  

One proposal notes that the time previously awarded for the project by the TAC has  been reduced, and shows a figure illustrating how the data can be translated into  compelling science and why the additional observations are needed in order to  publish. The other proposal notes that it was awarded time previously, but does not  mention whether the data were reduced or not, or why they need additional time.  

Justifying the request for priority

HET P0 time is extremely precious.  Only ~13% of the time is awarded at P0.

One proposal has calculated the number of hours in the trimester during which the  observations could be made. It finds there are very few of them, and all of them are  during times likely to be used by HETDEX P0.5 time, so only with P0 time will the  observations get executed. It also computes the chances that weather or other  contingencies will mean that the time will not get executed at all.  

The other proposal has a brief statement that they need the P0 time because their  “observations are time sensitive.” 

Having a compelling figure

One proposal synthesizes what makes the science so compelling in an easy to read  figure. It has a large font, is not too busy, and conveys a few key ideas. From the figure  the TAC quickly understands (for instance) the strength of the signal expected by the  proposed observations, the new physical parameter space explored by them, or the  factor by which the number of such detections will increase if the time is awarded.  The caption text explains exactly what the TAC members should understand by  looking at the figure.  

The other proposal has a very hard to read and interpret figure filled with extraneous  information (which is potentially of great interest to the proposer but of only  tangential relevance to the TAC). The TAC members spend a lot of time trying to  understand what it is trying to convey, because the caption, while technically accurate,  does not interpret the figure in the context of the underlying science.  

Showing a clear path to an important result

One proposal shows that these observations will triple the number of examples of a

newly appreciated phenomenon. It connects this phenomenon to an important  question in astrophysics, and illustrates how this is a result that the community will  be excited to see. The proposal explains the reasons this exciting science has not been  done before, emphasizing the competitive advantage HET offers Penn State in  addressing the question.  

The other proposal is to observe a few more examples of a phenomenon that, as far as the TAC can tell, has been observed dozens of times before. The proposal argues  simply that the observations “will inform studies” of the phenomenon.  

Arguing with strong prose

One proposal is easy to read, written in the active voice with tight, forthright prose  that has been proofread and polished by the co-authors. The scientific justification  lays out the problem being addressed clearly, emphasizing the place of these  observations in the broader scientific landscape. The TAC members finish reading it  quickly, with a good sense of the nature and importance of the work. A small number  of key messages are in boldface or italics, so the TAC can quickly find them when  deliberating.  

The other proposal was written in a single draft a few hours before the deadline. It is  written in dense, highly technical prose in the passive voice, and filled with technical  hedging, irrelevant qualifications, and unnecessary verbiage. The TAC members have  to read and re-read it before they can quite parse what is being written. Some  references are malformed, some words are misspelled, and there are many run-on  sentences. The TAC members finish reviewing the proposal with a vague sense of the  importance of the science and the way the observations fit in. During deliberation,  there are long pauses where TAC members hunt for a key piece of information they  think they remember reading.  

Clearly, the first proposal will (and should!) get the time, and the second will not. This is  because even though the actual merit of the science is identical for both proposals, the first proposal makes that merit easy to see, and the second does not. So make sure you are  writing the first proposal, not the second one!