Programs Include:








Page Tools
Print this page
Email this page
Send Feedback


University of Cincinnati
 

1=poor > 5=best

The material presented was appropriate for the time allocated:

4.7±0.5
The presenter was knowledgeable on the topic of proposal writing:
4.9±0.3
The presenter was responsive to questions:
4.8±0.5
The visual aids/slides were informative, legible, and helpful to the presentation:
4.7±0.6
The handout was a useful supplement to the information that was presented orally:
4.8±0.5
This program would be useful as a regular part of our faculty/student development program:
4.8±0.5
The following are written comments about the seminar
(on file):
•
Excellent presentation! I feel better prepared in providing information to grant writers at my institution.
•
 I’ve received three extramural grants (two as PI and one as Co-I) so far using the "formula".
•
 The seminar was excellent; it was broken down into smaller, more digestible segments. Detailed handouts were an excellent idea.
•
 I appreciated the examples worked into the presentation.
•
 I have taken this before (2006) and I am taking it again since the NIH format has changed. It is just as great, and I have learned a lot!
•
 Very systematic review. Great road map to writing.
•
 The presenter was exceptionally responsive to questions. Very helpful and informative. All graduate students should be encouraged to attend such a session. Very thought provoking as to how to approach and attack such proposals. Great pace, not rushed, adequate time to make notes.
•
 It was well organized and followed a logical progression.
•
 The handout allowed for greater attention to be directed to the presentation. The information was provided in a manner that is applicable to multiple fields, yet the examples were easily applied uniquely to each field.
•
 Very easy to follow; used language that was clear.
•
 Great seminar. Should be part of orientation or at least required as part of a first year faculty development.
•
 My second time to attend; he is so engaging and informative.
•
 This helped me to understand rationale of feedback provided during our division’s grant review process. Also helped give structure to what has sometimes felt like a vague and overwhelming process. Helped me to think about specific grantsmanship goals for duration of my training.
•
 Excellent. A seasoned grant writer. I learned much!
•
 Very easy to follow along. Nice use of anecdotes to "break" up content and to illustrate. Good mix of big picture and drilled down detail.
•
 [The presenter] is a great speaker with a wealth of information to share.
•
 This is the third time I’ve attended and each time I never fail to get a huge amount of information and insight from the presentation.

Testimonials


National Institutes of Health

American University

Women’s Reproductive Health Research Program – Brown University

Duke University School of Medicine

University of Wyoming

University of Wyoming

Boston University

Tulane University

FASEB and Howard University

Western University of Health Sciences

University of Minnesota

University of Kentucky

South Florida University

Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi

Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research

University of Cincinnati

FASEB and Xavier University of Louisiana

University of Nebraska – Lincoln

University of Alabama Huntsville

Wayne State University

Brown University

University of Wisconsin Milwaukee

University of Illinois at Chicago

Michigan State University Ag Bio Research

University of Iowa

University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

State University of New York at Buffalo

Mayo Clinic

Tufts University

Wayne State University

Washington State University

Georgia Southern University

California State University, Chico Research Foundation


© 2008 Grant Writers' Seminars & Workshops LLC.