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

[lolome]

If awarded, would you say that the MC fellow got the fellowship or that you got a fellowship for the fellow.

Many, many pages ago we were discussing about the role of the supervisor and how some of them use the MC fellowships as "grant money" and they write the proposals and find a candidate to fit their needs. I am among those that think the aim of this program is exactly the opposite, that the fellow has an idea and finds a group to be able to develop it.

What are your thoughts about it now that you have the experience from both parts?

@xman25 the purpose of this fellowship is to help the fellow get training and make their cvs better! They call them training fellowships, that's their point. So if you are not successful this year, focus on what needs you have to make you a better researcher/businessperson/or whatever and explain that in your application. The parts on professional development/career advancement are very important. I am speaking both as a past MC fellow (who scored 98%) and as a (hopeful) supervisor now.

Never lose the hope!

We do not know about it. Do you feel confident with your application? why would you think your proposal is below the threshold?

Yup, you're right.
But to be honest, my CV is not really that good enough, even though the host is the top (institute and supervisor both).

[kokoroko]

I thnk you are right about the budget, but wrong about the number of applications. Last year there were 9089 (7145 standard fellowships), this year there were 9830 (7565 ST). So the increase in budget is on par relative to the previous year when compared to the number of applications (slightly larger budget compared to the increase in applications).

See call updates:

2018:
https://ec.europa.eu/research/participa ... ifier/desc

2017:
https://ec.europa.eu/research/participa ... ifier/desc

Answering my own question... It seems that the budget has risen from 248,7 to 273 million euros and the number of applicants from 7065 to 9830. So a bit less than 10% increase in budget vs. almost 40% increase in applications?

The 2018 budget figure is from here: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participan ... -20_en.pdf

Is this correct?

[AdinaBabesh]

Yes, with around the same around 18% changes of success for those who scored above 70.

Of course, the percentage is lower considering the total number of eligible proposals.

Thanks! Clearly I had wrong numbers. So the overall chances should be roughly the same as last year.

I think in 2017, were submitted 9089,
In 2016, 8946
and in 2015, 8508 applications.

And 2018, 9830 applications.

Answering my own question... It seems that the budget has risen from 248,7 to 273 million euros and the number of applicants from 7065 to 9830. So a bit less than 10% increase in budget vs. almost 40% increase in applications?

The 2018 budget figure is from here: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participan ... -20_en.pdf

Is this correct?

[danGFSOC]

Below data put together by our generous Administrator.

To estimate success rates you should consider the different actions with the different budget allocations BUT also that the living allowance per fellowship has been increased by more than 200 € per month, so the average 2018 fellowship will cost more. This means that the increase in the budget is partially, but not totally, absorbed by the increase of budget allocation per fellowship.

For GF we should expect 170-180 fellowships I think (last year 137) and a success rate of about 20%.

Success rates always include applications below the threshold, but excluding ineligible ones. So from data you see below you should not consider maybe some 3% that were deemed not eligible already in october.

I've compiled and colour coded the statistics (so it's easy to see the changes):
2017 Statistics:

A total of 9,089 proposals were submitted in response to this call. The number of proposals for each type of action is shown below:
- Standard European Fellowships (MSCA-IF-EF-ST): 7,145 proposals
- Career Restart Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-CAR): 352 proposals
- Reintegration Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-RI): 561 proposals
- Society & Enterprise Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-SE): 173 proposals
- Global Fellowships (MSCA-IF-GF): 858 proposals

2016 Statistics:

A total of 8,946 proposals were submitted in response to this call. The number of proposals for each type of action is shown below:
- Standard European Fellowships (MSCA-IF-EF-ST): 7,140 proposals
- Career Restart Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-CAR): 251 proposals
- Reintegration Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-RI): 528 proposals
- Society & Enterprise Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-SE): 111 proposals
- Global Fellowships (MSCA-IF-GF): 916 proposals

This year's statistics (2018):

A total of 9,830 proposals were submitted in response to this call. The number of proposals for each type of action is shown below:
- Standard European Fellowships (MSCA-IF-EF-ST): 7,565 proposals
- Reintegration Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-RI): 610 proposals
- Career Restart Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-CAR): 471 proposals
- Society & Enterprise Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-SE): 327 proposals
- Global Fellowships (MSCA-IF-GF): 857 proposals

Good luck everybody, the end of this suffering is near!

[expert_pastMC]

I believe that the fellowship belongs to the fellow and that it is wrong for a supervisor to use it as their own grant money. I hate it when people try to 'steal' someone else's grants only because the fellow cannot apply as a PI. I had experienced that with the first institution I had applied for the MC (fortunately did not get it then), where I had applied for a big grant as well, and only because I was not permanent faculty I could not be put as PI of my *own* grant. So, when time came and I got the big grant, the named PI was someone who wanted to steal the glory from me, so I took my grant to another institution and I became a named PI for my own grant.

But then I have heard of stories of supervisors writing the application themselves and then getting the fellowship and considering it as their own. However, this is really *not* the point of the MC fellowships. These fellowships are for the advancement of the careers of the fellows, with focus on training being of paramount importance. So, it is wrong to think of the Marie-Curie fellowships as belonging to anyone else than the fellow.

If awarded, would you say that the MC fellow got the fellowship or that you got a fellowship for the fellow.

Many, many pages ago we were discussing about the role of the supervisor and how some of them use the MC fellowships as "grant money" and they write the proposals and find a candidate to fit their needs. I am among those that think the aim of this program is exactly the opposite, that the fellow has an idea and finds a group to be able to develop it.

What are your thoughts about it now that you have the experience from both parts?

@xman25 the purpose of this fellowship is to help the fellow get training and make their cvs better! They call them training fellowships, that's their point. So if you are not successful this year, focus on what needs you have to make you a better researcher/businessperson/or whatever and explain that in your application. The parts on professional development/career advancement are very important. I am speaking both as a past MC fellow (who scored 98%) and as a (hopeful) supervisor now.

Yup, you're right.
But to be honest, my CV is not really that good enough, even though the host is the top (institute and supervisor both).

[Simone]

This means that Thursday night I will wake every 30 minutes to check my emails... and after receiving the email I won't be able to sleep anymore

Update!
This is info from the Swiss NCP: "To the best of our knowledge, the information about the results on IF will be released as of Thursday 7/2 morning (0:01)."

[AdinaBabesh]

In 2017, under IF-EF-Standard were funded 1029 projects. Above the threshold were 5607, that makes a success rate of 18.35%.

In 2016, the success rate was indeed around 16%.

However, the best year so far is 2014, with 22.67% success rate

Below data put together by our generous Administrator.

To estimate success rates you should consider the different actions with the different budget allocations BUT also that the living allowance per fellowship has been increased by more than 200 € per month, so the average 2018 fellowship will cost more. This means that the increase in the budget is partially, but not totally, absorbed by the increase of budget allocation per fellowship.

For GF we should expect 170-180 fellowships I think (last year 137) and a success rate of about 20%.

Success rates always include applications below the threshold, but excluding ineligible ones. So from data you see below you should not consider maybe some 3% that were deemed not eligible already in october.

I've compiled and colour coded the statistics (so it's easy to see the changes):
2017 Statistics:



2016 Statistics:

This year's statistics (2018):

A total of 9,830 proposals were submitted in response to this call. The number of proposals for each type of action is shown below:
- Standard European Fellowships (MSCA-IF-EF-ST): 7,565 proposals
- Reintegration Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-RI): 610 proposals
- Career Restart Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-CAR): 471 proposals
- Society & Enterprise Panel (MSCA-IF-EF-SE): 327 proposals
- Global Fellowships (MSCA-IF-GF): 857 proposals

Good luck everybody, the end of this suffering is near!

[Kitten]

My fellow and I have treated this as a joint venture and have written the proposal between us with support from both institutions - the outputs will also be joint ventures During training for MCIF, we were told that the supervisor has 40% input into project and Fellow 60%

[lolome]

I am glad to hear this! I hope the fellow gets the fellowship and you demonstrate you supervisor capabilities!

I have heard also stories about not being able to apply as PI... This is the reason MC fellowships are so important and it has to be avoided that professors, etc. use them as another source of research funding to develop their own ideas.

I am sorry of what happened to you, but happy you could move your grant to another institution. How could you do that if you were not named as PI in the first instance? was it very difficult?

I believe that the fellowship belongs to the fellow and that it is wrong for a supervisor to use it as their own grant money. I hate it when people try to 'steal' someone else's grants only because the fellow cannot apply as a PI. I had experienced that with the first institution I had applied for the MC (fortunately did not get it then), where I had applied for a big grant as well, and only because I was not permanent faculty I could not be put as PI of my *own* grant. So, when time came and I got the big grant, the named PI was someone who wanted to steal the glory from me, so I took my grant to another institution and I became a named PI for my own grant.

But then I have heard of stories of supervisors writing the application themselves and then getting the fellowship and considering it as their own. However, this is really *not* the point of the MC fellowships. These fellowships are for the advancement of the careers of the fellows, with focus on training being of paramount importance. So, it is wrong to think of the Marie-Curie fellowships as belonging to anyone else than the fellow.

If awarded, would you say that the MC fellow got the fellowship or that you got a fellowship for the fellow.

Many, many pages ago we were discussing about the role of the supervisor and how some of them use the MC fellowships as "grant money" and they write the proposals and find a candidate to fit their needs. I am among those that think the aim of this program is exactly the opposite, that the fellow has an idea and finds a group to be able to develop it.

What are your thoughts about it now that you have the experience from both parts?

@xman25 the purpose of this fellowship is to help the fellow get training and make their cvs better! They call them training fellowships, that's their point. So if you are not successful this year, focus on what needs you have to make you a better researcher/businessperson/or whatever and explain that in your application. The parts on professional development/career advancement are very important. I am speaking both as a past MC fellow (who scored 98%) and as a (hopeful) supervisor now.

[expert_pastMC]

of course it really depends on the field.

My fellow and I have treated this as a joint venture and have written the proposal between us with support from both institutions - the outputs will also be joint ventures During training for MCIF, we were told that the supervisor has 40% input into project and Fellow 60%