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

[Mscaif]

.

[xman25]

https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&ver ... p&src=typd
Someone is asking through twitter, will they reply?

[Mscaif]

.

[evolved]

After 80%, its luck. It is a success if the evaluator agrees with your choice of institution, what is important for them as a research subject, yadayada
Even then, it depends on many other factors such as funding available etc...

This explains why, contrary to expectations, several people get LOWER scores the second time than their first time, even if they have a brand new project proposed.

Don't forget the importance of 2 way knowledge transfer.They also look at what you give the institution and marks it.

[sound]

How did you find the list of evaluators?

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%.

[Mscaif]

.

[evolved]

https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tende ... pertslists

You will NOT be impressed, trust me. These "experts" evaluate you. Its shocking that people think they get a proper evaluation and that their score actually means something.

How did you find the list of evaluators?

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).

[ATBGF2017]

Exactly.

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%.

[evolved]

The EU has the most bureaucratic way imaginable to define and get "experts". These people evaluate us and they have often much weaker CVs than a lot of candidates. Thats why the comments are so silly so often, like " you didn’t specify which journal you will publish your paper"

[Bren]

They get 450 euro per full day worked. I will become an evaluator hopefully next year, that money aint bad.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tende ... pertslists

You will NOT be impressed, trust me. These "experts" evaluate you. Its shocking that people think they get a proper evaluation and that their score actually means something.

How did you find the list of evaluators?

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.