http://bear.ras.ucalgary.ca/CASCA/s94/cfht-e.html (Einblicke ins Internet, 10/1995)

How To Improve a CFHT Proposal(?)

Since joining the Canadian Time Allocation Committee (CTAC) for the CFHT in 1993, I view proposal writing in a much different light. Indeed, I hope that every astronomer gets an opportunity to serve on the CTAC, if for no other reason than to experience how the process works and to gain an appreciation of what it takes to write a better CFHT proposal.

It seemed to me that it might be possible to pass along some helpful suggestions to those in the astronomical community who are seeking to improve the quality of their proposals. Hence, this article. In no way should this be construed as a prescription which will guarantee CFHT time. On the contrary, I clearly do not know how to write the perfect CFHT proposal because I frequently get turned down, while there are many in our community who already write excellent quality proposals. So with these caveats in mind, here are some personal observations, reflections, and suggestions which you may find useful when writing your next CFHT proposal.

The Nature of the CTAC

It is important for astronomers to be aware of how the CTAC operates. The CTAC is composed of 6 Canadian astronomers who have been chosen by the Director-General of HIA in consultation with the current Chair of the CTAC and the HIA Advisory Board to adjudicate the 50-60 CFHT proposals which are submitted each semester. We meet approximately 5 or 6 weeks after each deadline to rank the proposals, having beforehand solicited the opinions of 2 or 3 external referees per submission. (External reviews are invaluable. We are a small community with disparate interests and unless we are prepared to enlarge the CTAC membership significantly, this is the best way to assess proposals.) The "expert" grades are not used in the final ranking per se, although the comments certainly influence the grade we assign to each proposal. During the meeting, every proposal is thoroughly discussed, and its strengths and weaknesses are identified. We then compute a final grade for each proposal based on the unweighted mean of the individual grades. (In the case of a conflict of interest, a CTAC member will leave the room during the discussion of that proposal and will not submit a grade for it.)The CTAC does not operate under a quota system; there are no east vs west, stellar vs extragalactic, Canadian vs foreign, quotas. At the conclusion of the meeting, we draw a line on the page corresponding to the number of dark and bright nights Canada has been allotted in the semester. Proposals above get time, those below don't, although the CFHT is responsible for drafting the final schedule and has other constraints which it must consider. This is why no proposal is guaranteed time at this stage. Please keep two things in mind:

The CTAC employs a straightforward ranking process. Many proposals receive "highest recommendation" from one or more of the external referee(s). But this does not guarantee that it will get time. The only question is, how does it compare relative to the others? This is tough enough for the CTAC to decide, but it is impossible to gauge in isolation.
To obtain CFHT time you have to convince us that your proposal is wonderful. We are human beings. We can make mistakes. But I believe that these "faults" do not significantly affect the final ranking for well written proposals. If you don't believe this, then I recommend that you talk with a current or former CTAC member. I think they'll corroborate my story.

If your proposal fails to get CFHT time, carefully study the"CFHT Observing Proposal Report," which you will eventually receive in the mail. If you still don't understand why your proposal wasn't granted time, then politely contact the chairman of the CTAC who, it is hoped, will elaborate.

The Proposal Itself

The four most important parts of a CFHT proposal in the order in which they will be addressed are;

S2, Summary of the Program;
S8, Justify the use of the CFHT and the amount of observing time requested;
S13, Report on last observing runs at CFHT; and
S6, Scientific Justification.

Before discussing each of these briefly, I would like to list some of the minor technical irritations to avoid which are not fatal in themselves, but which can put the CTAC in a nasty mood from the start.

Make sure you use the latest version of the proposal form which is available as a LaTeX template through the CFHT via anonymous ftp. There is no excuse for still using the 1988 form. While you're on the CFHT computer, pick up the most recent information bulletins and detector information which the staff has taken great pains to produce. We check things such as exposure times rather carefully, and being significantly out either way can seriously affect your chances for success. Please don't use fonts which are too small. Everything should and can be said using the proper font size within the allotted area. I have found it interesting that some successful proposals do not even use every square cm of the second page of the scientific justification. Only one page of references and/or figures is permitted. The overwhelming fraction of proposals stick to this rule, but about 10% do not. Please be fair.

The most annoying thing from my perspective, however, concerns figures. It seems to me that any figure included in a proposal should illustrate an important scientific or technical point; that this is an excellent proposal which is technically feasible. But a significant fraction of proposals have casually added figures without captions, or captions which are hand- written and illegible, or figures with symbols or short forms which aren't described in the text or caption(s).

Summary of the Program:

This section is more important than most people realize. The CTAC is expecting to find a concise encapsulation of what you want to do. In fact some CTAC members like to take a marker and highlight the phrase or sentence which contains the focus of the proposal. If you don't include an easily identifiable focus or rationale of the proposal here, then it seems only fair that CTAC members are free to guess the focus. Of course, our focus may be different from yours! Moreover, it seems that if there isn't a clear objective outlined in this section, then there isn't likely to be one in the scientific justification either.

Technical Justification:

Every successful proposal must justify the total amount of telescope time requested. CFHT telescope time is valuable for a great many reasons. Thus, it is not unreasonable to have you account for every hour. (Canadians have access to a single 4 m class telescope at the moment. For this reason, "large aperture" is a sufficient reason for Canadians to apply to the CFHT. A foreign applicant requiring only a large aperture and who has access to a 4 m class instrument in his or her country, will not have nearly as strong a case, however.)

It goes without saying that exposure times must be based on signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio calculations and instrumental efficiencies, etc., provided in the user manuals. While it is also useful to justify exposure times based on previous observations --- for those who are fortunate to have such data - -- it is always good practice to back this claim up with a S/N ratio calculation.

The CTAC often encounters "padding" --- the addition of extra nights to the program over and above what is necessary to fulfill the scientific objectives. (Unfortunately, the oversubscription rate at the CFHT is so high that it is not possible to fold in time for bad weather or instrumental failure.) Most of the time, the CTAC will catch "padding" and trim the proposal back to the bare minimum. The CFHT now has a "minimum time" policy; ie., an instrument must remain on the telescope at least 4 nights, otherwise it will not be scheduled. Users should bear this in mind when submitting a proposal for a unique or new instrument.

Proposers who intend to look at a single object or objects within a narrow range of right ascension should remember to mention what will be done with the part of the night when the object is too far over, normally at the beginning and ending of the night. A justification carries far more weight if the entire night is accounted for, rather than 2/3 of a night.

Finally, it is always good policy to mention briefly a backup proposal; eg., in the event that the seeing is poor, etc. It can only help and takes only a couple of lines.

Previous CFHT runs:

The main thing that the CTAC learns from this section is, when you have been granted CFHT time in the past, have you used it profitably and informed the community about your work by publishing it. Even if the data are currently unpublished, a status report is very helpful. Ongoing or continuing programs should take this opportunity to inform the CTAC about the progress of the program. No program is guaranteed CFHT time based solely on previous work.

Scientific Justification:

A CFHT proposal has the reputation of having one of the toughest scientific justifications to write in all of astronomy. Indeed, one often hears from cynics that a CFHT scientific justification (hereafter SJ) is essentially a journal paper with blanks for the observational results. This isn't much of an exaggeration! A consequence of this is that first-time applicants, eg., young and/or foreign astronomers, may not have the same rate of success at the CFHT as at "single page SJ" telescopes. As a result, some might claim --- based on their initial CFHT experience --- that there must be a bias towards the "Canadian astronomical establishment." But this is not so. All proposals submitted through Ottawa are treated in precisely the same way. It is true, however, that those who successfully master the art of writing a good CFHT SJ will continue to be successful at the CFHT and write higher quality proposals for other telescopes. With a little reflection, I think you will agree that the high quality demanded of a CFHT SJ only benefits Canadian astronomy.

In general, the SJ requires;

an excellent scientific idea,
the strategy to exploit this idea observationally, and
the ability to communicate this to the CTAC and the external reviewers.

If any of these is lacking, the proposal may not be successful.

A good proposal usually begins with a crisp, concise summary of the problem being addressed. This isfollowed by about half a page introduction to the problem, about a page outlining your solution --- including a justification of your sample selection --- and finally a demonstration that the project is technically feasible. Most proposers realize that the CTAC members are not all experts in their field and so write a reasonable introduction. If there is a problem with an introduction, it is usually that it is too slow at getting to the point which takes away valuable space for the remaining components.

Once a problem has been identified, it is up to the authors to convince the CTAC that the proposed observing technique will solve it. Very often, a simulation is required so as to justify the sample selection, and/or that the observing parameters are indeed sufficient to obtain the "answer." More and more proposers are making use of packages such as IRAF's ARTDATA or of Monte-Carlo simulations to argue their case persuasively.

Sample selection can be a difficult problem. I know this very well, working on AGNs where a "complete sample" is almost unheard of. The best some of us can do is a "representative sample." That's fine, of course, but then the sample must be described in some detail. It is insufficient to say that, when the time comes, a sample will be selected from a certain list of objects. Humour the CTAC and include the best sample with the proposal.

While S8 is reserved for an explicit discussion of exposure times, the bulk of the technical feasibility arguments should be presented in the SJ as well. You must demonstratethat the novel technique you are proposing can solve the problem in a finite amount of observing time and with the relevant instrument.

Some final (disparate) hints for the SJ:

Since space is at a premium, consider using more figures. They may not be worth a thousand words each, but they will help. (But please, see the remarks in the first part of this section!)
While one expects every proposal to "blow its own horn," one can only read words such as "crucial" or "critical" so often without becoming desensitized.
Read the SJ over carefully, and be sure to use a spelling checker. It is terribly annoying to find incomplete sentences or several spelling errors in a single justification. Have you used esoteric jargon without explaining it?
Be as flexible as possible with possible observing dates. This is especially important since the CFHT is tending towards fewer instrument changes and therefore longer gaps between successive appearances on the telescope.
The CTAC does have some sort of collective memory; certainly over a one year period. We are usually aware if the proposal is a resubmission which was unsuccessful previously. Moreover, we are more than dimly aware of the last CTAC's suggestions and expect to findthat they are either incorporated, or at least addressed, in the current version of the proposal.
Is the project well suited for service observing? This could be a very useful option for projects which require a feasibility study, or for projects which need just a couple of more hours to wrap up. The only restrictions are that the instrument requested must be either FOCAM or Redeye, and that it can be completed, including calibration frames, in less than half a night. Please see the "update" section included with the most recent CFHT proposal form for more explicit details.

I hope this has been of some assistance. Until next semester then;

M. De Robertis, Chairman, CTAC 1994

Back to Summer Solstice 1994 Index.

CASCA Journals Project

Up to Cassiopeia index.

Up to CASCA Home Page

Please e-mail any suggestions/comments to Jack Penfold (jpenfold@mtroyal.ab.ca)