In 2018, when I moved from Purdue University in the US to EPFL in Switzerland, I had the opportunity to apply for an ERC H2020 starting grant in computer science. ERC starting grants are similar to the NSF Career award and can be submitted up to 7 years after completing the PhD, i.e., your clock starts ticking with the date you passed your PhD defense. Given the timing of my move back, I had one single shot and had to make it the best possible shot.

The ERC Starting Grant (StG) is the most prestigious single PI award available in Europe and the competition is fierce. Only about 10% of applications actually win the award, most applicants can only apply a total of 2-3 times. While the Career comes with roughly $500,000 in funding, the StG comes with 1,500,000 Eur which suffices for roughly 3 PhD students plus one post doc over the 5 year lifetime of the award in Switzerland.

The evaluation of the submissions happens in two stages. Applicants submit a 5 page abstract and a 15 page proposal. In the first stage, the abstract along with the applicant's CV is evaluated with roughly 20-25% of candidates progressing to the second stage. The first stage is primarily a selection based on the candidate's background and the rough idea of the project. While having a solid abstract is necessary, sufficient background is a must. Candidates that don't have the right standing regarding prior published papers are unlikely to make it.

In the second stage, both parts (i.e., abstract and main proposal) are sent out for review and the candidate is then invited to present their project in front of a broad committee using a short presentation. The questioning in the committee is fierce as all the different areas are covered at the same time with competition between areas and in the area.

In my opinion, the main reasons why my proposal was successful was that a) I got friendly feedback from peers and b) I dedicated sufficient amount of time into writing.

Writing such a highly competitive proposal is not a weekend rush job but requires careful planning. I started about 5 months before the deadline and spent a good 3 months in writing and getting feedback. Without the feedback, discussions, dry-runs, and interactions of my peers, it would have been impossible to win this award.

To those asking for tips on their proposals, I suggest the following four key tips:

1. Plan at least 3 months of full time writing and preparation with 5 months overall.
2. Ask colleagues in your area (and at your school) for proposals. Be specific to look at both successful and unsuccessful proposals.
3. Brainstorm ideas with colleagues, friends, and successful peers. Work on your 5min pitch and make it solid.
4. Get iterative feedback from colleagues during your 3 months of writing. Ask for feedback on your drafts and discuss them in detail.

Most universities (or countries) also offer general training and information about the ERC StG. I took part in two such seminars: one for Switzerland and the other local to EPFL. The seminar for all researchers in Switzerland was rather broad but contained a lot of baseline information that was valid across all fields (i.e., from physics over biology to computer science). As practices vary across these fields, the information is rather general but still useful to get a good overview. Similarly talking to other awardees and candidates allows you to get into the mood of writing proposals. The EPFL seminar was very tailored towards technical universities and I got good information from our research office how to customize and specialize. Still, the information was rather broad but gave me a good perspective. What helped me most though was the feedback from my peers and friends in security and my colleagues at the CS department.

I spent the first two months simply asking my colleagues and friends for copies of their proposals, studied the outlines/structures, and asked for what they thought made their proposal successful. This gave me a great overview and idea of what to focus on (and what not). This initial setup phase was incredibly useful to set the scene of my proposal and to understand about the trade-offs between different aspects.

After two months of distillation and some pitching to these peers, I was in the right mindset to start teasing out an outline and draft that I continuously checked with my peers. Every couple of weeks I asked for feedback from someone else. I pre-aligned the timeline to make sure to get timely feedback and to not annoy my friends too much with my requests. This continuous feedback helped me stay focused and allowed me to tailor the proposal to current trends.

Don't underestimate the amount of time it takes to write the proposal. And don't be shy to scrap text and rewrite sections. I dropped whole work packages and rewrote them, or replaced them with (hopefully better) ideas. Text is volatile, adjust, adapt, and massage it to make it better.

Looking back, while I had the necessary background to pass the first stage, I was extremely lucky to pass the interview and second stage. Being at EPFL was certainly a boost for the first stage and I also had PhD students that already graduated from my time at Purdue with excellent publications, so my initial setup was good. My proposal was reasonable and I got a lot of feedback. A couple of years later, I would clarify some aspects and better cater to the diverse committee but overall it was evidently good enough.

Submitting an ERC StG proposal is a huge time commitment. Assess yourself if you've got the necessary resources. If you do, don't be shy to ask for proposals (I got about 5 different proposals from successful colleagues) and ask for rounds of feedback and brainstorming sessions.

If you win an ERC StG: congratulations, well done! If you don't, it's not the end of the world either. With only a 10% acceptance rate, the results are random in a way that many great proposals that deserve to be accepted are rejected due to minor hickups or random factors. Try again if you can, or submit somewhere else. In the end, submitting to proposals as faculty is similar to submitting papers as a student. Sometimes you win, sometimes you have to try again!

If you plan to submit an StG grant, reach out and ask me questions. I'm happy to help!