ERC: From Starting to Consolidator

[lexhis]

Hello everyone,

I'm an Associate Professor currently facing a bit of a dilemma regarding my next steps with the ERC grants. I find myself in that challenging space between the ERC Starting Grant and the Consolidator Grant. Due to the timing thresholds set by the ERC, I won't be eligible to apply for the Starting Grant in the near future, meaning my only option will be to move forward with the Consolidator Grant.

My concern is that I consider myself a relatively young scholar, and I feel that my CV might not yet be as robust as those of more senior applicants who have more experience and accomplishments under their belts. While I believe my research idea is strong and innovative, I'm worried that I might be at a disadvantage compared to applicants with longer track records.

Does anyone have insights on the success rates for ERC Consolidator Grants, especially for younger applicants? Additionally, what are the key evaluation criteria that the committees tend to focus on? Are there specific strategies or advice that could help someone in my position?

Thanks in advance!

P.S. My relevant ERC panel is SH2

[asglani]

Well, if you are a an associate professor it looks to me that you are already in an excellent position for a consolidator grant!
I am in a much worse situation than you: I just failed the starting grant (although I ended up with an A ranking after the interview, so it was not a complete failure after all) and I defended my thesis in 2017, so I have to go for the consolidator next. And unlike you I do not have a tenured position yet.
Regarding the requirements for the consolidator: my understanding is that you don't have to be necessarily a well established PI with your own research team, but just that you have already shown evidence of research independence (e.g., by publishing articles as a last author). That said, I don't know how much importance is given to the experience of the applicant, and if this is something that can really make a difference, and I also would be interested in hearing some opinions.

[lexhis]

Well, if you are a an associate professor it looks to me that you are already in an excellent position for a consolidator grant!
I am in a much worse situation than you: I just failed the starting grant (although I ended up with an A ranking after the interview, so it was not a complete failure after all) and I defended my thesis in 2017, so I have to go for the consolidator next. And unlike you I do not have a tenured position yet.
Regarding the requirements for the consolidator: my understanding is that you don't have to be necessarily a well established PI with your own research team, but just that you have already shown evidence of research independence (e.g., by publishing articles as a last author). That said, I don't know how much importance is given to the experience of the applicant, and if this is something that can really make a difference, and I also would be interested in hearing some opinions.

Thanks a lot for your reply and for sharing your experience, I really appreciate it! Getting an A ranking is definitely not a small thing, even if the grant didn’t go through—so well done!

As for me, while being an associate professor is great, I still feel like there’s so much to figure out with these grants. Sometimes,
I really feel discouraged because I’m not able to understand what *exactly* they want from us.

I’m also really curious about how much weight they put on experience and whether not being a well-established PI can affect things. It’d be awesome to hear more thoughts from others who’ve been through this or have some insights to share!

[CGN]

Hello everyone,

I'm an Associate Professor currently facing a bit of a dilemma regarding my next steps with the ERC grants. I find myself in that challenging space between the ERC Starting Grant and the Consolidator Grant. Due to the timing thresholds set by the ERC, I won't be eligible to apply for the Starting Grant in the near future, meaning my only option will be to move forward with the Consolidator Grant.

My concern is that I consider myself a relatively young scholar, and I feel that my CV might not yet be as robust as those of more senior applicants who have more experience and accomplishments under their belts. While I believe my research idea is strong and innovative, I'm worried that I might be at a disadvantage compared to applicants with longer track records.

Does anyone have insights on the success rates for ERC Consolidator Grants, especially for younger applicants? Additionally, what are the key evaluation criteria that the committees tend to focus on? Are there specific strategies or advice that could help someone in my position?

Thanks in advance!

P.S. My relevant ERC panel is SH2

Hi, are you in health law?

If you are an associate professor at that stage, it is appropriate to be in the consolidator stage, they expect you to be there, don't worry Plus, they don't value the CV in itself but only in relation to the feasibility of your project. And the success rate in the transition is just the same. Don't worry!
I have two years left due to maternity leave, but I am still a postdoc (SH2 as well).

[lexhis]

Hello everyone,

I'm an Associate Professor currently facing a bit of a dilemma regarding my next steps with the ERC grants. I find myself in that challenging space between the ERC Starting Grant and the Consolidator Grant. Due to the timing thresholds set by the ERC, I won't be eligible to apply for the Starting Grant in the near future, meaning my only option will be to move forward with the Consolidator Grant.

My concern is that I consider myself a relatively young scholar, and I feel that my CV might not yet be as robust as those of more senior applicants who have more experience and accomplishments under their belts. While I believe my research idea is strong and innovative, I'm worried that I might be at a disadvantage compared to applicants with longer track records.

Does anyone have insights on the success rates for ERC Consolidator Grants, especially for younger applicants? Additionally, what are the key evaluation criteria that the committees tend to focus on? Are there specific strategies or advice that could help someone in my position?

Thanks in advance!

P.S. My relevant ERC panel is SH2

Hi, are you in health law?

If you are an associate professor at that stage, it is appropriate to be in the consolidator stage, they expect you to be there, don't worry Plus, they don't value the CV in itself but only in relation to the feasibility of your project. And the success rate in the transition is just the same. Don't worry!
I have two years left due to maternity leave, but I am still a postdoc (SH2 as well).

Thanks so much for your reply and the reassurances, really appreciated! Yes, I’m in Health Law, and it’s in this area that I’d like to propose my project!

Sometimes I really wish I could understand what they expect from us… I’m convinced my idea has great potential, at least from a European perspective, but it breaks my heart to know that, no matter how solid it is, it could still get a negative evaluation if submitted at the wrong time or with the wrong reviewers

[CGN]

Hello everyone,

I'm an Associate Professor currently facing a bit of a dilemma regarding my next steps with the ERC grants. I find myself in that challenging space between the ERC Starting Grant and the Consolidator Grant. Due to the timing thresholds set by the ERC, I won't be eligible to apply for the Starting Grant in the near future, meaning my only option will be to move forward with the Consolidator Grant.

My concern is that I consider myself a relatively young scholar, and I feel that my CV might not yet be as robust as those of more senior applicants who have more experience and accomplishments under their belts. While I believe my research idea is strong and innovative, I'm worried that I might be at a disadvantage compared to applicants with longer track records.

Does anyone have insights on the success rates for ERC Consolidator Grants, especially for younger applicants? Additionally, what are the key evaluation criteria that the committees tend to focus on? Are there specific strategies or advice that could help someone in my position?

Thanks in advance!

P.S. My relevant ERC panel is SH2

Hi, are you in health law?

If you are an associate professor at that stage, it is appropriate to be in the consolidator stage, they expect you to be there, don't worry Plus, they don't value the CV in itself but only in relation to the feasibility of your project. And the success rate in the transition is just the same. Don't worry!
I have two years left due to maternity leave, but I am still a postdoc (SH2 as well).

Thanks so much for your reply and the reassurances, really appreciated! Yes, I’m in Health Law, and it’s in this area that I’d like to propose my project!

Sometimes I really wish I could understand what they expect from us… I’m convinced my idea has great potential, at least from a European perspective, but it breaks my heart to know that, no matter how solid it is, it could still get a negative evaluation if submitted at the wrong time or with the wrong reviewers

I believe we spoke about my ERC interview in a conference in Amsterdam some months ago! Is it possible?
You have an amazing CV and I am sure your idea is great. If you don't get the ERC, I don't know who else can get it.

What I strongly suggest (also to clear your doubts) is to hire Yellow Research or Enspire Science. All ERC grantees I know were helped by them, even the ones that don't admit it publicly.
This year I asked for the support of YR because I wanted to be sure that my proposal was flawless.

However, I agree with you that there are some unavoidable factors that could get in our way. It really is an internal fight between different disciplines inside the panel and some of them clearly have more power than others (check the titles of winning projects in the last 4 years, you will see some patterns). What we can do is adapting the project to the panel keywords. For example, in your project you could enhance the governance aspect.

To understand what SH2 panel members expect, read the proposal of Adina Maricut: https://www.adinaakbik.eu/projects/2702-eurotypes

[lexhis]

Hi, are you in health law?

If you are an associate professor at that stage, it is appropriate to be in the consolidator stage, they expect you to be there, don't worry Plus, they don't value the CV in itself but only in relation to the feasibility of your project. And the success rate in the transition is just the same. Don't worry!
I have two years left due to maternity leave, but I am still a postdoc (SH2 as well).

Thanks so much for your reply and the reassurances, really appreciated! Yes, I’m in Health Law, and it’s in this area that I’d like to propose my project!

Sometimes I really wish I could understand what they expect from us… I’m convinced my idea has great potential, at least from a European perspective, but it breaks my heart to know that, no matter how solid it is, it could still get a negative evaluation if submitted at the wrong time or with the wrong reviewers

I believe we spoke about my ERC interview in a conference in Amsterdam some months ago! Is it possible?
You have an amazing CV and I am sure your idea is great. If you don't get the ERC, I don't know who else can get it.

What I strongly suggest (also to clear your doubts) is to hire Yellow Research or Enspire Science. All ERC grantees I know were helped by them, even the ones that don't admit it publicly.
This year I asked for the support of YR because I wanted to be sure that my proposal was flawless.

However, I agree with you that there are some unavoidable factors that could get in our way. It really is an internal fight between different disciplines inside the panel and some of them clearly have more power than others (check the titles of winning projects in the last 4 years, you will see some patterns). What we can do is adapting the project to the panel keywords. For example, in your project you could enhance the governance aspect.

To understand what SH2 panel members expect, read the proposal of Adina Maricut: https://www.adinaakbik.eu/projects/2702-eurotypes

Thank you so much for your message and your kind words of admiration! …I must confess, though, that I think there might be a small misunderstanding: I don’t believe I am the person you have in mind, but I really wish I had such an impressive CV as the one you attribute to me!

Nevertheless, I am truly grateful for all the resources and suggestions you shared; some of them were totally new to me and I’m sure they’ll be very helpful.

Thanks again for your support, and I hope our paths cross again soon (perhaps… at “another” conference in Amsterdam! ).

[CGN]

Thanks so much for your reply and the reassurances, really appreciated! Yes, I’m in Health Law, and it’s in this area that I’d like to propose my project!

Sometimes I really wish I could understand what they expect from us… I’m convinced my idea has great potential, at least from a European perspective, but it breaks my heart to know that, no matter how solid it is, it could still get a negative evaluation if submitted at the wrong time or with the wrong reviewers

I believe we spoke about my ERC interview in a conference in Amsterdam some months ago! Is it possible?
You have an amazing CV and I am sure your idea is great. If you don't get the ERC, I don't know who else can get it.

What I strongly suggest (also to clear your doubts) is to hire Yellow Research or Enspire Science. All ERC grantees I know were helped by them, even the ones that don't admit it publicly.
This year I asked for the support of YR because I wanted to be sure that my proposal was flawless.

However, I agree with you that there are some unavoidable factors that could get in our way. It really is an internal fight between different disciplines inside the panel and some of them clearly have more power than others (check the titles of winning projects in the last 4 years, you will see some patterns). What we can do is adapting the project to the panel keywords. For example, in your project you could enhance the governance aspect.

To understand what SH2 panel members expect, read the proposal of Adina Maricut: https://www.adinaakbik.eu/projects/2702-eurotypes

Thank you so much for your message and your kind words of admiration! …I must confess, though, that I think there might be a small misunderstanding: I don’t believe I am the person you have in mind, but I really wish I had such an impressive CV as the one you attribute to me!

Nevertheless, I am truly grateful for all the resources and suggestions you shared; some of them were totally new to me and I’m sure they’ll be very helpful.

Thanks again for your support, and I hope our paths cross again soon (perhaps… at “another” conference in Amsterdam! ).

Oh sorry, I thought you were her XD

But I am sure your CV is still impressive as you already reached the Associate Professor level so soon from your PhD! Nowadays this is very rare in the law field. Most people I know reach that after 15/20 years. My former supervisor has passed her 50s and was just appointed. So cheer up, you did great! Don't worry about that, focus on your proposal and especially the theoretical background

[lexhis]

I believe we spoke about my ERC interview in a conference in Amsterdam some months ago! Is it possible?
You have an amazing CV and I am sure your idea is great. If you don't get the ERC, I don't know who else can get it.

What I strongly suggest (also to clear your doubts) is to hire Yellow Research or Enspire Science. All ERC grantees I know were helped by them, even the ones that don't admit it publicly.
This year I asked for the support of YR because I wanted to be sure that my proposal was flawless.

However, I agree with you that there are some unavoidable factors that could get in our way. It really is an internal fight between different disciplines inside the panel and some of them clearly have more power than others (check the titles of winning projects in the last 4 years, you will see some patterns). What we can do is adapting the project to the panel keywords. For example, in your project you could enhance the governance aspect.

To understand what SH2 panel members expect, read the proposal of Adina Maricut: https://www.adinaakbik.eu/projects/2702-eurotypes

Thank you so much for your message and your kind words of admiration! …I must confess, though, that I think there might be a small misunderstanding: I don’t believe I am the person you have in mind, but I really wish I had such an impressive CV as the one you attribute to me!

Nevertheless, I am truly grateful for all the resources and suggestions you shared; some of them were totally new to me and I’m sure they’ll be very helpful.

Thanks again for your support, and I hope our paths cross again soon (perhaps… at “another” conference in Amsterdam! ).

Oh sorry, I thought you were her XD

But I am sure your CV is still impressive as you already reached the Associate Professor level so soon from your PhD! Nowadays this is very rare in the law field. Most people I know reach that after 15/20 years. My former supervisor has passed her 50s and was just appointed. So cheer up, you did great! Don't worry about that, focus on your proposal and especially the theoretical background

Thank you so much! It means a lot to hear that. The road is definitely tough, but I hope this virtual space can become a way for us to stay in touch and share our progress with each other – or even just vent a little when needed!