2018 Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (H2020-MSCA-IF-2018)

[kassiek]

There is a big part of me that would rather check this group than my email.

[Kitten]

Me too

[lolome]

Aha! Now I understand, Kitten

Fingers crossed

Yikes, feeling very anxious now! Back to earlier chat - I am going for full professor not lecturer - I am not the proposed Fellow but the supervisor and tick all the other 'professor' requirements so just need to get the funding now All good luck to everyone, please post if you hear any results - one of us at least should be lucky

[Bren]

A question of sorts if I may (sure why not, its a distraction)

What input, if any, did your proposed research mentor have in your proposal? Did he or she read it, give comments, suggestions etc

[lolome]

I wrote it all, he read it a couple of times, gave me some minor comments and some suggestions. Of course, as there has to be a two-way transfer I included part of his expertise in the proposal, and his input in the comments and suggestions was mainly here. I think the proposal is strong because combines very nicely his and my expertise. This is just my biased opinion, of course...

I have heard all kind of stories, from no input from the mentor to the mentor being the one writing the bid and looking for candidates fitting the profile he/she needs. Some of them are real experts in getting MC fellows year after year, as they really know how to tick the boxes that the reviewers need. So... there is no real way to know, and some tenured people use it as another way of getting a grant.

A question of sorts if I may (sure why not, its a distraction)

What input, if any, did your proposed research mentor have in your proposal? Did he or she read it, give comments, suggestions etc

[Bren]

I find this part very disturbing:

"mentor being the one writing the bid and looking for candidates fitting the profile he/she needs. Some of them are real experts in getting MC fellows year after year, as they really know how to tick the boxes that the reviewers need. So... there is no real way to know, and some tenured people use it as another way of getting a grant"

To my mind thats a load of crap and an abuse of the system, but, then again, if the system allows it I suppose I cant complain. Just seems kinda 1) unfair that profs would be sucking up all that money that could go to early stage researchers (its bad enough they refuse to retire with their EMERITUS rubbish), and 2) kinda pathetic, maybe they are unable to get significant grants (from the likes of ESRC for social science).

Just my 2 cents.

[lolome]

I totally agree with you, Bren. When I did know this... it was like waking up and realizing that not all of us do the same effort. That all this transparency is a bunch of bs. There is an abuse of the system, of course. Some people are very "professional" at getting their hands where the money is. It does not mean that they cannot get grants from other funding bodies, such as research council money, it means that they want it all.

Anyway. I am not very positive when talking about the academic system.

I find this part very disturbing:

"mentor being the one writing the bid and looking for candidates fitting the profile he/she needs. Some of them are real experts in getting MC fellows year after year, as they really know how to tick the boxes that the reviewers need. So... there is no real way to know, and some tenured people use it as another way of getting a grant"

To my mind thats a load of crap and an abuse of the system, but, then again, if the system allows it I suppose I cant complain. Just seems kinda 1) unfair that profs would be sucking up all that money that could go to early stage researchers (its bad enough they refuse to retire with their EMERITUS rubbish), and 2) kinda pathetic, maybe they are unable to get significant grants (from the likes of ESRC for social science).

Just my 2 cents.

[Bren]

I'm glad its not just me who thinks this way. As I said in an earlier post, theres much about academia that I very much dislike, and this bullshit would be high on the list.

My mentor didn't even see the proposal before I submitted it, but that was completely my fault as I drafted the proposal over a handful of days right before the deadline. Now that I think of it he still hasn't seen it, ha.

I totally agree with you, Bren. When I did know this... it was like waking up and realizing that not all of us do the same effort. That all this transparency is a bunch of bs. There is an abuse of the system, of course. Some people are very "professional" at getting their hands where the money is. It does not mean that they cannot get grants from other funding bodies, such as research council money, it means that they want it all.

Anyway. I am not very positive when talking about the academic system.

I find this part very disturbing:

"mentor being the one writing the bid and looking for candidates fitting the profile he/she needs. Some of them are real experts in getting MC fellows year after year, as they really know how to tick the boxes that the reviewers need. So... there is no real way to know, and some tenured people use it as another way of getting a grant"

To my mind thats a load of crap and an abuse of the system, but, then again, if the system allows it I suppose I cant complain. Just seems kinda 1) unfair that profs would be sucking up all that money that could go to early stage researchers (its bad enough they refuse to retire with their EMERITUS rubbish), and 2) kinda pathetic, maybe they are unable to get significant grants (from the likes of ESRC for social science).

Just my 2 cents.

[sound]

Its true that ideally MSCA is a individual grant that is supposed to get one prepped for grant writing but I have also heard stories where, the title and even reference material to write the introduction was provided by the host PI. Some OCD PI's writing the grant app themselves. In my case, I proposed a few ideas to my host PI and we did a few back and forth emails to finalize the one that fit both our interests. I wrote the grant app and sent it over for edits.My host PI took things seriously and was quite proactive in giving feedback while on my part I should say there were days were i felt i was brain dead and couldnt even look at the application. Since its a mobility application most of the communication was by email.

I'm glad its not just me who thinks this way. As I said in an earlier post, theres much about academia that I very much dislike, and this bullshit would be high on the list.

My mentor didn't even see the proposal before I submitted it, but that was completely my fault as I drafted the proposal over a handful of days right before the deadline. Now that I think of it he still hasn't seen it, ha.

I totally agree with you, Bren. When I did know this... it was like waking up and realizing that not all of us do the same effort. That all this transparency is a bunch of bs. There is an abuse of the system, of course. Some people are very "professional" at getting their hands where the money is. It does not mean that they cannot get grants from other funding bodies, such as research council money, it means that they want it all.

Anyway. I am not very positive when talking about the academic system.

I find this part very disturbing:

"mentor being the one writing the bid and looking for candidates fitting the profile he/she needs. Some of them are real experts in getting MC fellows year after year, as they really know how to tick the boxes that the reviewers need. So... there is no real way to know, and some tenured people use it as another way of getting a grant"

To my mind thats a load of crap and an abuse of the system, but, then again, if the system allows it I suppose I cant complain. Just seems kinda 1) unfair that profs would be sucking up all that money that could go to early stage researchers (its bad enough they refuse to retire with their EMERITUS rubbish), and 2) kinda pathetic, maybe they are unable to get significant grants (from the likes of ESRC for social science).

Just my 2 cents.

[lolome]

Your procedure sounds as the ideal one, as it should be on average.

Anyway, every time I think about these things I start doubting my own proposal and thinking I will not get it.

At the end, the scientific/research part of the proposal is so little compared with the whole crap that has to be written to tick all the boxes that I always wonder whether the "science" is somehow important... I guess yes, as the proposal is evaluated in three different aspects. I should stop thinking!