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

[academic_guru]

No no. On january 22. You can check on the portal.

After february 12 i will go myself to fetch them in brussels

If i remember in 2016 they were late and announced in march.

I can bring some muscle power

[Kitten]

I can bring kitten power

[sound]

You mean like the mad kitten pic that would be some sight

I can bring kitten power

[fr489]

If they are also dealing with widening fellowships, their ranking for IF must be already sort of finished, isn't it? (My understanding was that widening fellowships are offered to some participants that failed to obtain a MSCA, provided their partner institution is in one of the "widening countries").

I spoke to Mrs.Hellevuo.she told me that they are dealing with widening fellowship and İf at the same time thus, process is taking a bit longer compared to last year.
Unfortunately, results won't be out today.
Sorry guys

[kassiek]

Can someone explain widening a bit too me? I’ve got myself a bit confused with what you mean by it. IE what are the widening countries?

[evolved]

Its to boost countries that have low success rates in the MSCA. You only need to have >70% in the MSCA and propose to do your fellowship in one of these countries to be eligible.

https://www.mariecuriealumni.eu/posts/m ... 8-and-2019

Member States: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Associated Countries: Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Faroe Islands, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, Tunisia, Turkey and Ukraine.

Can someone explain widening a bit too me? I’ve got myself a bit confused with what you mean by it. IE what are the widening countries?

[evolved]

To be frank I think they should just have a threshold of 70-80% and then just allocate all fellowships randomly. Problem finished.
And when I say 70%, it should be truly 70%, not like now that 85% of people pass this threshold. There is a HUGE inflation of scores with most fellowships being concentrated at 80-100%.

[Bren]

I disagree. Despite problems with the scoring system, I would still imaging that there is a big difference between a proposal that scored 71% and one that scored 91%. I certainly would not want to give 200K + of tax payers money to a 70% or 80% scored proposal. In my opinion, even keeping in mind the bias of experts and the imperfections of the system, if you cant score 85% then you are not ready for such a big responsibility (that obviously includes myself if I score below 85).

To be frank I think they should just have a threshold of 70-80% and then just allocate all fellowships randomly. Problem finished.
And when I say 70%, it should be truly 70%, not like now that 85% of people pass this threshold. There is a HUGE inflation of scores with most fellowships being concentrated at 85-100%.

[pkem]

I am curious to know whether MS / AC has world class institute s to handle MSCA

[evolved]

I have multiple friends that submitted the EXACT same proposal in multiple years and got something close to 75-80% the first time and 95% the second time. Only difference was their publications which were higher the second time.

Its just random. Many of the evaluators often do not even know the subject, yet do the evaluation to get cash. I checked the lists of the evaluators, nothing to be too impressed actually. Usually very very narrow fields.

I wouldn't think that someone that got 85% because they "forgot to put the milestones on the Gantt chart" are not ready for such a big responsibility.
Check with everyone, the comments are always so random and weak.

I disagree. Despite problems with the scoring system, I would still imaging that there is a big difference between a proposal that scored 71% and one that scored 91%. I certainly would not want to give 200K + of tax payers money to a 70% or 80% scored proposal. In my opinion, even keeping in mind the bias of experts and the imperfections of the system, if you cant score 85% then you are not ready for such a big responsibility (that obviously includes myself if I score below 85).

To be frank I think they should just have a threshold of 70-80% and then just allocate all fellowships randomly. Problem finished.
And when I say 70%, it should be truly 70%, not like now that 85% of people pass this threshold. There is a HUGE inflation of scores with most fellowships being concentrated at 85-100%.