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

[megasphaera]

I think that link does not work as said previously. I think is a mirror of the actual follow up option you have in the portal. By the way does the timeline (the blue one from submission to informed, in the follow up page) changes to submission to evaluation or ranking?
Just curiosity

For?

thank you everyone!!

For giving the link I guess.

By the way, is everyone still on SUBMISSION?

[sherpaz]

I think so. Looks like last year's link is not working (same link without the outofdateproject part) sooooo we are getting paranoid for absolutely nothing yayyy

I think that link does not work as said previously. I think is a mirror of the actual follow up option you have in the portal. By the way does the timeline (the blue one from submission to informed, in the follow up page) changes to submission to evaluation or ranking?
Just curiosity

For?

For giving the link I guess.

By the way, is everyone still on SUBMISSION?

[danGFSOC]

Well, just to carry on with speculations. Actually, for GF the number of application are, incredibly, almost the same 858 vs 857 (so just one less in 2018). It is true that there is a huge increase in the budget for GF, but I am not sure that there is a close link between cutoffs and funding from one year to another. For the SOC panel the cut-off in 2017 was 95 but in 2014 (same budget) was 92. In the standard, in 2014 cutoff was 92,8 and in 2017 91 but with less money (210 vs 205). This confirms that actually the intersection between subjective characteristics of the evaluators, quality level of applications with which your application is evaluated and ways of managing the evaluation by chairs and vice-chairs play a role that is even more important than pure numbers. However this year the success rate for some actions and panels can reach 20% and even beyond. For GF I expect that they will assign 170-180 fellowships that means a success rate for the entire action of 20% and more (not counting applications that resulted as not eligible. Last year 20).

For Global Fellowships, the cutoff should significantly decrease. The number of applications is slightly less (857 vs 900) but the budget increase is huge. It went up from 33 million to 45. So I am expecting the cutoff to be around 88-91.

For European fellowships, I am not sure. Budget went up from 205 to 220 but considering the number of applicants, the cutoff will probably go up as well.

I notice that there are a lot more applicants this year than last year. I'm a bit surprised at this, I kind of expected there to be less what with Brexit looming, assumed less UK people would apply. Also, theres a hell of a lot more money in the fund this year than in previous years. I looked at the figures a few days ago and I its 270m this year vs 230m (I think) last year. I've no insight into why there is such a big jump in applications, or why there is more dough available, or how these things might impact on cut off scores. If I understood how such things worked I would be have a proper job, rather than being a qualitative social scientist.

This is my first year applying and I aint going to stress, if I don't get it then thats life, not the end of the world. Having said that, I'm pretty sure I will get it as my research idea is goddam amazing!!! Seriously though, best of luck to all and let the chips land where they may.

[Bren]

The quality of applicants is petty stable from year to year. What does change year to year however are the characteristics of experts, and the actual expertise they bring to the table. A colleague of mine scored very high and received a GF a few years ago. She then worked as an expert for 2 years. For both of those years she was sent proposals to evaluate, some of which were only marginally relevant to her area of expertise and she felt quite out of her depth. As a person of integrity, she spent many hours reading up on subjects because she wanted to be as fair as possible to all the proposals. Nevertheless, she scored the proposals that were directly relevant to her area of knowledge the highest because she could judge them best. Also, as she worked with the other 2 experts on her panel, she realized that they lacked knowledge in her area of specialty and had given low (ish) scores to the very same proposals that she has scored the highest. Basically, all sections were scored high except section 1 which actually spells out the research idea. She then participated in what sounds like a tedious and difficult process of negotiation with the experts to defend her high scores. All in all it sounds like a very imperfect system.

Well, just to carry on with speculations. Actually, for GF the number of application are, incredibly, almost the same 858 vs 857 (so just one less in 2018). It is true that there is a huge increase in the budget for GF, but I am not sure that there is a close link between cutoffs and funding from one year to another. For the SOC panel the cut-off in 2017 was 95 but in 2014 (same budget) was 92. In the standard, in 2014 cutoff was 92,8 and in 2017 91 but with less money (210 vs 205). This confirms that actually the intersection between subjective characteristics of the evaluators, quality level of applications with which your application is evaluated and ways of managing the evaluation by chairs and vice-chairs play a role that is even more important than pure numbers. However this year the success rate for some actions and panels can reach 20% and even beyond. For GF I expect that they will assign 170-180 fellowships that means a success rate for the entire action of 20% and more (not counting applications that resulted as not eligible. Last year 20).

For Global Fellowships, the cutoff should significantly decrease. The number of applications is slightly less (857 vs 900) but the budget increase is huge. It went up from 33 million to 45. So I am expecting the cutoff to be around 88-91.

For European fellowships, I am not sure. Budget went up from 205 to 220 but considering the number of applicants, the cutoff will probably go up as well.

I notice that there are a lot more applicants this year than last year. I'm a bit surprised at this, I kind of expected there to be less what with Brexit looming, assumed less UK people would apply. Also, theres a hell of a lot more money in the fund this year than in previous years. I looked at the figures a few days ago and I its 270m this year vs 230m (I think) last year. I've no insight into why there is such a big jump in applications, or why there is more dough available, or how these things might impact on cut off scores. If I understood how such things worked I would be have a proper job, rather than being a qualitative social scientist.

This is my first year applying and I aint going to stress, if I don't get it then thats life, not the end of the world. Having said that, I'm pretty sure I will get it as my research idea is goddam amazing!!! Seriously though, best of luck to all and let the chips land where they may.

[danGFSOC]

And back to luck...

The quality of applicants is petty stable from year to year. What does change year to year however are the characteristics of experts, and the actual expertise they bring to the table. A colleague of mine scored very high and received a GF a few years ago. She then worked as an expert for 2 years. For both of those years she was sent proposals to evaluate, some of which were only marginally relevant to her area of expertise and she felt quite out of her depth. As a person of integrity, she spent many hours reading up on subjects because she wanted to be as fair as possible to all the proposals. Nevertheless, she scored the proposals that were directly relevant to her area of knowledge the highest because she could judge them best. Also, as she worked with the other 2 experts on her panel, she realized that they lacked knowledge in her area of specialty and had given low (ish) scores to the very same proposals that she has scored the highest. Basically, all sections were scored high except section 1 which actually spells out the research idea. She then participated in what sounds like a tedious and difficult process of negotiation with the experts to defend her high scores. All in all it sounds like a very imperfect system.

Well, just to carry on with speculations. Actually, for GF the number of application are, incredibly, almost the same 858 vs 857 (so just one less in 2018). It is true that there is a huge increase in the budget for GF, but I am not sure that there is a close link between cutoffs and funding from one year to another. For the SOC panel the cut-off in 2017 was 95 but in 2014 (same budget) was 92. In the standard, in 2014 cutoff was 92,8 and in 2017 91 but with less money (210 vs 205). This confirms that actually the intersection between subjective characteristics of the evaluators, quality level of applications with which your application is evaluated and ways of managing the evaluation by chairs and vice-chairs play a role that is even more important than pure numbers. However this year the success rate for some actions and panels can reach 20% and even beyond. For GF I expect that they will assign 170-180 fellowships that means a success rate for the entire action of 20% and more (not counting applications that resulted as not eligible. Last year 20).

For Global Fellowships, the cutoff should significantly decrease. The number of applications is slightly less (857 vs 900) but the budget increase is huge. It went up from 33 million to 45. So I am expecting the cutoff to be around 88-91.

For European fellowships, I am not sure. Budget went up from 205 to 220 but considering the number of applicants, the cutoff will probably go up as well.

[megasphaera]

That's great!
So, basically the whole idea of EXCELLENCE is total bullshit.
They should put Marie Curie actions under the pillar of Luck then, and not excellent science. I am wondering, if all of this happens to the majority of applicants, how europe and the fellows can defend the prestige of this fellowship?

The quality of applicants is petty stable from year to year. What does change year to year however are the characteristics of experts, and the actual expertise they bring to the table. A colleague of mine scored very high and received a GF a few years ago. She then worked as an expert for 2 years. For both of those years she was sent proposals to evaluate, some of which were only marginally relevant to her area of expertise and she felt quite out of her depth. As a person of integrity, she spent many hours reading up on subjects because she wanted to be as fair as possible to all the proposals. Nevertheless, she scored the proposals that were directly relevant to her area of knowledge the highest because she could judge them best. Also, as she worked with the other 2 experts on her panel, she realized that they lacked knowledge in her area of specialty and had given low (ish) scores to the very same proposals that she has scored the highest. Basically, all sections were scored high except section 1 which actually spells out the research idea. She then participated in what sounds like a tedious and difficult process of negotiation with the experts to defend her high scores. All in all it sounds like a very imperfect system.

Well, just to carry on with speculations. Actually, for GF the number of application are, incredibly, almost the same 858 vs 857 (so just one less in 2018). It is true that there is a huge increase in the budget for GF, but I am not sure that there is a close link between cutoffs and funding from one year to another. For the SOC panel the cut-off in 2017 was 95 but in 2014 (same budget) was 92. In the standard, in 2014 cutoff was 92,8 and in 2017 91 but with less money (210 vs 205). This confirms that actually the intersection between subjective characteristics of the evaluators, quality level of applications with which your application is evaluated and ways of managing the evaluation by chairs and vice-chairs play a role that is even more important than pure numbers. However this year the success rate for some actions and panels can reach 20% and even beyond. For GF I expect that they will assign 170-180 fellowships that means a success rate for the entire action of 20% and more (not counting applications that resulted as not eligible. Last year 20).

For Global Fellowships, the cutoff should significantly decrease. The number of applications is slightly less (857 vs 900) but the budget increase is huge. It went up from 33 million to 45. So I am expecting the cutoff to be around 88-91.

For European fellowships, I am not sure. Budget went up from 205 to 220 but considering the number of applicants, the cutoff will probably go up as well.

[Bren]

We have no reason to believe that it happens to the majority of applicants, my colleague is just one person and we should be a bit careful about extrapolating out from an example of one.

Maybe I will just keep my mouth shut from here on in.

That's great!
So, basically the whole idea of EXCELLENCE is total bullshit.
They should put Marie Curie actions under the pillar of Luck then, and not excellent science. I am wondering, if all of this happens to the majority of applicants, how europe and the fellows can defend the prestige of this fellowship?

The quality of applicants is petty stable from year to year. What does change year to year however are the characteristics of experts, and the actual expertise they bring to the table. A colleague of mine scored very high and received a GF a few years ago. She then worked as an expert for 2 years. For both of those years she was sent proposals to evaluate, some of which were only marginally relevant to her area of expertise and she felt quite out of her depth. As a person of integrity, she spent many hours reading up on subjects because she wanted to be as fair as possible to all the proposals. Nevertheless, she scored the proposals that were directly relevant to her area of knowledge the highest because she could judge them best. Also, as she worked with the other 2 experts on her panel, she realized that they lacked knowledge in her area of specialty and had given low (ish) scores to the very same proposals that she has scored the highest. Basically, all sections were scored high except section 1 which actually spells out the research idea. She then participated in what sounds like a tedious and difficult process of negotiation with the experts to defend her high scores. All in all it sounds like a very imperfect system.

Well, just to carry on with speculations. Actually, for GF the number of application are, incredibly, almost the same 858 vs 857 (so just one less in 2018). It is true that there is a huge increase in the budget for GF, but I am not sure that there is a close link between cutoffs and funding from one year to another. For the SOC panel the cut-off in 2017 was 95 but in 2014 (same budget) was 92. In the standard, in 2014 cutoff was 92,8 and in 2017 91 but with less money (210 vs 205). This confirms that actually the intersection between subjective characteristics of the evaluators, quality level of applications with which your application is evaluated and ways of managing the evaluation by chairs and vice-chairs play a role that is even more important than pure numbers. However this year the success rate for some actions and panels can reach 20% and even beyond. For GF I expect that they will assign 170-180 fellowships that means a success rate for the entire action of 20% and more (not counting applications that resulted as not eligible. Last year 20).

[megasphaera]

That's totally fine and no need to shut your mouth! This is merely a discussion to spend some time before the results, share opinions and talk to new people! At least your colleague has been fair and got some info before evaluation. I guess it is easier to judge a project that you understand perfectly.

From the other point of view, a lab close to mine, when i was doing my PhD, was extremely successful at getting MSCA-IF. One year they got two of them under the same PI. Of course the PI had years of experience in MSCA funding and recently got an ITN.

We have no reason to believe that it happens to the majority of applicants, my colleague is just one person and we should be a bit careful about extrapolating out from an example of one.

Maybe I will just keep my mouth shut from here on in.

That's great!
So, basically the whole idea of EXCELLENCE is total bullshit.
They should put Marie Curie actions under the pillar of Luck then, and not excellent science. I am wondering, if all of this happens to the majority of applicants, how europe and the fellows can defend the prestige of this fellowship?

The quality of applicants is petty stable from year to year. What does change year to year however are the characteristics of experts, and the actual expertise they bring to the table. A colleague of mine scored very high and received a GF a few years ago. She then worked as an expert for 2 years. For both of those years she was sent proposals to evaluate, some of which were only marginally relevant to her area of expertise and she felt quite out of her depth. As a person of integrity, she spent many hours reading up on subjects because she wanted to be as fair as possible to all the proposals. Nevertheless, she scored the proposals that were directly relevant to her area of knowledge the highest because she could judge them best. Also, as she worked with the other 2 experts on her panel, she realized that they lacked knowledge in her area of specialty and had given low (ish) scores to the very same proposals that she has scored the highest. Basically, all sections were scored high except section 1 which actually spells out the research idea. She then participated in what sounds like a tedious and difficult process of negotiation with the experts to defend her high scores. All in all it sounds like a very imperfect system.

[cukovic]

I did some tricks and now this is what I have on my screen!
Proposal.jpg

Hi!

I am new here, can you please tell us which tricks did you use to get that screen? In my case Link/ID doesn't work.

Many thanks!

Update: Ah it works... Current status: SUBMISSION.

[danGFSOC]

Yes, no reason to leave discussions. We are just spending our time here waiting for results. As I tried to explain in a previous post, my idea is that there is no just one reason you get or not the fellowship. Winners wrote very high quality applications, although not all high quality applications are successful. So you need in any case to write a very high quality application and then hope that there is no uncontrollable elements against it during the evaluation phase. But I guess this is a general rule in life.

What Bren describes is not surprising: it is impossible to find for every application three competent and outstanding evaluators. It would mean for the EU to select and hire evaluators one by one according to the content of each application (this year 10'000). It would cost a lot of time and money: just impossible. But this is clearly put in the guide for applicants: the evaluator may not be familiar with your topic, so you have to write your application consequently. It is a very difficult exercise but this is also what is evaluated: how you write your proposal, if it is clear and understandable for an evaluator that is into your general field but not necessairly in your topic/issue. And in any case, everyone is exposed to the same risk of being evaluated by a non fully competent evaluator. So I think we should be more relaxed on this. The system is not perfect for sure, but not so terrible. And I was unsuccessful already twice...

We have no reason to believe that it happens to the majority of applicants, my colleague is just one person and we should be a bit careful about extrapolating out from an example of one.

Maybe I will just keep my mouth shut from here on in.

That's great!
So, basically the whole idea of EXCELLENCE is total bullshit.
They should put Marie Curie actions under the pillar of Luck then, and not excellent science. I am wondering, if all of this happens to the majority of applicants, how europe and the fellows can defend the prestige of this fellowship?

The quality of applicants is petty stable from year to year. What does change year to year however are the characteristics of experts, and the actual expertise they bring to the table. A colleague of mine scored very high and received a GF a few years ago. She then worked as an expert for 2 years. For both of those years she was sent proposals to evaluate, some of which were only marginally relevant to her area of expertise and she felt quite out of her depth. As a person of integrity, she spent many hours reading up on subjects because she wanted to be as fair as possible to all the proposals. Nevertheless, she scored the proposals that were directly relevant to her area of knowledge the highest because she could judge them best. Also, as she worked with the other 2 experts on her panel, she realized that they lacked knowledge in her area of specialty and had given low (ish) scores to the very same proposals that she has scored the highest. Basically, all sections were scored high except section 1 which actually spells out the research idea. She then participated in what sounds like a tedious and difficult process of negotiation with the experts to defend her high scores. All in all it sounds like a very imperfect system.