Talk Academia

Same here... I'm 845. I just hope it's not gonna take too much time to fix the problem

The link works again. Still ranking. 845xxx.

AdinaBabesh wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:15 am

Did anyone above 8445** receive any message? I cannot access the follow-up ...

8442, just got the e-mail

846xxx and nothing here...so going to work.

In my case, most of what's listed as "weaknesses" are actually questions that could have been easily answered. Like, how well do you speak the languages of the case countries? - Fluently, please refer to the resume. Or, Have you considered gender aspects? - Yes, I have but my focus is on social meanings shares by both genders. Etc, etc. What's frustrating is that even though the project is relatively highly scored, the reviews look sloppy. This year's reviews contradict last year's and it is clear that even though specifically asked to consider previous feedback this year's reviewers did not bother to reconcile the differences in opinion. There is also a factually erroneous comment which states that the time frame of the analysis is not mentioned (it is). I don't mind losing a tough competition (to the lucky ones here) but the basis of rejection as it's presented in the reviews seems ungrounded and the reviews are beyond spurious..

IF ST LIF wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:25 am

MSCA-IF-CAR_2018 wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:17 am

Waw, that is crazy!

How is that possible?????!!!!!!

IF ST LIF wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:15 am

Congratulations to those who got it!!

Rejected here. I resubmitted an improved application, I was on the reserve list with 92.6%. My score this year is 77%, I don’t understand a shit. Total lottery.

No idea how. But to me, this is a total lottery. Evaluation process is nothing but subjective.

Another 844xxx here... got an email but the portal is suuuuuper slow...

IF ST LIF wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:25 am

MSCA-IF-CAR_2018 wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:17 am

Waw, that is crazy!

How is that possible?????!!!!!!

No idea how. But to me, this is a total lottery. Evaluation process is nothing but subjective.

[/quote]

For you guys reference, I got funded and the phase now changed to phase":"NEGOTIATION. Congrats to those who successfully secured the fund. Its not easy. Well done. For those not get funded this time, you are already very very excellent but the fund is too competitive. Stay strong and try again this year. I wish you big luck next time. To those guys not get any info until now, be patient and you will get the notification email in the following several minutes. Good luck everyone. Thank you for accompanying me these 2 weeks to let me know I am not alone. Thank you very very much!

Dajm wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:35 am

In my case, most of what's listed as "weaknesses" are actually questions that could have been easily answered. Like, how well do you speak the languages of the case countries? - Fluently, please refer to the resume. Or, Have you considered gender aspects? - Yes, I have but my focus is on social meanings shares by both genders. Etc, etc. What's frustrating is that even though the projects is relatively highly scored, the reviews look sloppy. This year's reviews contradict last year's and it is clear that even though specifically asked to consider previous feedback this year's reviewers did not bother to reconcile the differences in opinion. There is also a factually erroneous comment which states that the time frame of the analysis is not mentioned (it is).

IF ST LIF wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 9:25 am

MSCA-IF-CAR_2018 wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:17 am

Waw, that is crazy!

How is that possible?????!!!!!!

No idea how. But to me, this is a total lottery. Evaluation process is nothing but subjective.

Agree with you. As an example, last year gantt chart was amazing, very organized and clear. This year, it was the same, with the only addition of persons-months and they said that it is a mess and not clear. WTF!

They just uploaded an 'ethics report" in my documents, saying the proposal is "ethics ready"!! Did nit receive an ethics report last year

Id: 845