Quiz — Chapter 2: Thinking Like a Funder
Question 1. A funder's stated mission is to "advance early literacy in low-income communities." Why might it decline a genuinely excellent literacy program aimed at affluent suburban schools?
Answer
Because the project, however excellent, does not advance *this funder's* mission, which specifies low-income communities. Funders give to advance their mission, not to reward quality in the abstract. It is a fit failure, not a quality failure.Question 2. The chapter argues your "true audience" is not the funding organization. Who is it, and why does the distinction change how you write?
Answer
The individual, tired, human reviewer reading your proposal among many others. It changes everything because people — not organizations — read proposals, and a person has limited attention, competitors, and a need to defend their choice. Writing for that human means front-loading the point, making structure visible, and answering questions in the order they arise.Question 3. In an NIH study section, who primarily determines an application's fate, and what does that imply for your writing?
Answer
The two or three *assigned* reviewers who read it in full and present it to the panel; the rest rely on their critiques and a brief discussion. Implication: write so your assigned reviewer can both deeply understand the work and concisely summarize and defend it to colleagues who have not read it.Question 4. Why is the school-essay habit of "saving the best for last" a mistake in grant writing?
Answer
Reviewer fatigue: a tired reviewer decides early and fast whether to invest attention, and may never reach the end at full attention. Your strongest material — what you'll do and why this funder should care — must come first, on page one.Question 5. Put the reviewer's questions in order and identify which one, answered "no," ends the review: approach, fit, capacity, significance, budget.
Answer
Order: fit → significance → approach → capacity → budget. A "no" on **fit** ends it immediately, regardless of quality.Question 6. Explain the "two fears" reviewers carry and how a winning proposal addresses both.
Answer
The fear of *championing a flawed proposal* and the fear of *missing a great one*. A winning proposal soothes the first by being rigorous, specific, and honest about limitations (safe to support), and the second by making its significance and innovation vivid (costly to pass up). It is both exciting and defensible.Question 7. Give two reasons contacting a program officer before writing is high-value, and one thing only they can tell you.
Answer
Reasons: they can confirm fit and steer you to the right mechanism, and they can save you from a hopeless application — both serve the funder too. Only-they-can-tell: whether your project fits *current* priorities, which mechanism is right, whether they've recently funded similar work, or what their reviewers tend to value/criticize.Question 8. Translate this applicant-centered opening into a funder-centered one (for a funder focused on reducing rural opioid deaths): "We've developed a novel peer-support model and want funding to study it."
Answer
Something like: "Opioid overdose deaths in rural counties continue to rise, and isolation is a known driver this funder is committed to addressing. We propose to test whether a peer-support model reduces overdose risk in rural communities, building on [evidence]. If it works, it offers a low-cost, replicable tool against rural overdose." The funder's problem and its significance come first; the model appears as the vehicle.Question 9. What is the difference between honest "translation" of your project into a funder's language and dishonest shoehorning? Why does the line matter beyond ethics?
Answer
Honest translation re-frames *true* features to foreground what the funder values; dishonest shoehorning invents or distorts features. Beyond ethics, dishonest framing wins funding you cannot deliver on, leading to failed reports, reputational damage, and a funder who won't take your next call. If only misrepresentation fits, it's the wrong funder.Question 10. Why do NSF's Broader Impacts surprise many scientists, and what does that reveal about "thinking like a funder"?
Answer
Because Broader Impacts is a formal, weighted review criterion that can sink an otherwise-excellent proposal, yet scientists often treat it as an afterthought. It reveals that you must give a funder's *stated* criteria their genuine due, not just the parts that match your instincts — the funder, not the applicant, defines what counts.Question 11. Describe the "skim test" and what passing it tells you.
Answer
Read only the title, first sentences, headings, and bold text, at speed. If from that alone you can state what the project does, why it matters to the funder, and why the team can do it, the structure is doing its job for a skimming reviewer. If not, the argument is buried and key points must be lifted into first sentences and headings.Question 12. A government grant is scored against a published rubric with points per section. How should that change how you structure the proposal?