APPLICATION PROCEDURE STEP BY STEP Annika Sundbäck-Lindroos Finnish National Structure

Attitude Your goal is not to make a good application, but To make an excellent one!

The evaluation procedure The independent experts are: -Previously or currently involved in European projects -More or less specialised in the field -At least one from the same discipline -The other one from the same domain (hard sciences, life sciences, social sciences & humanities) -Who are paid ½ day of work per proposal

The evaluation procedure The evaluation is organised in several phases: -Registration and eligibility check -Expert briefing -Individual and remote phase (2 weeks) -Consensus discussion and consolidation and remote phase (2 weeks) -Final consolidation panel, ranking and debriefing (3 days) -Selection board decision

Some formalities Application deadline: 30. April CET + Copy by to all relevant National Structures (No summary sheet this time, no need to send version to Agency) Application submitted electronically ONLY. (test it as soon as possible) -> Estimated availability of the E-form: March 2012

The application Mandatory documents: The E-form “Application Form” Mandatory attachment 1. The "Declaration on Honour by the Legal Representative of the Applicant Organisation" (to be attached to the application form) Mandatory attachment 2. The "Consortium answers to the Award criteria" (to be attached to the application form), last year max. 25 pages Optional attachment 3: Letters of intent (highly recommended), proof of recognition, student agreement, consortium agreement, degree models

The e-form Five elements: Part A: Identification of the applicant and other organisations participating in the project, sections A and B filled in also by associated partners Part B: Organisation and activities, check coherence with narrative partnership description Part C: Statistics and summary description of the project Part D: Technical Capacity Part E: Degree(s) awarded

E-form: first page Project title: Comprehensive and understandable Acronym: communicative -> Think of the above as important marketing elements! Language: the working language of the consortium AND the in communication with the Agency and Commission (EN, FR or DE)

Part A: identification of the partners Must be filled by all partners ( including associated partners) Legal representative: Normally rector/director Contact person: The ”real” project coordinator. Should in most cases belong to the administrative staff

Part B - Organisation To be completed for each participating institution, incl Associated Partners Check coherence with narrative partnership description Aims and activities of the organisation: -> Faculty/Dpt-level, relevant info, experience in European projects, key activities.. Role of organisation in the project: should be related to a specific tasks in the project and particularly well described: who is doing what ? Other community grants: Only for the coordinator i.e : Erasmus IP, Tempus...

Part C – description of the project C.1 Statitistical data General information on the project: - ECTS delivered (60 or 120) - title - Duration and mobility ( min 2 EU countries) - course language - Participation costs per semester: ( incl fees, insurance, other costs) - number of students ( with and without grants)

C.2 thematic field main+ second area ( drop down menu) C.3 summary of the project Summary = 1st impression of your project (positive or negative one!) Will be published on internet: good way to attract students and to communicate = marketing tool Should include: description of the partnership, objectives, contents, mobility tracks, selection requirements, language...etc Present a coherent text : only 3000 characters ( no copy/paste of selected sentences of the proposal)

Part D – Technical capacity You should demonstrate your capacity to manage an EMMC or EMJD. Title partly misleading – includes also academic skills D.1 consortium experience  expertise in the field, in joint programmes management, in different scientific networks... D.2 Skills and expertise, cross-check with narrative  Max 3Cvs per partner (same structure). Main aspects relevant to the project / same presentation: recent/relevant publications, international activity, contacts to society (editorial boards of academic journals, networks etc), link to top research NB! should include a CV of administrative staff

Part E – Degrees awarded What kind of degree(s) are you going to award? -> Name, Double/Joint etc.? In a consortium, there may be several options based on the mobility tracks of the students and legal framework of the partners. ”Proof of recognition”: Does your institution have the right to issue this kind of diploma? (Suomessa esim. maisteriohjelma-asetus)

Document 2: Declaration of Honour Document 3: Award Criteria

Narrative part: Award criteria Expert assessment manual very relevant, includes concrete tips, must be read Joint Doctorates 1. Academic and Research quality 25% Objectives (academic / research point of view); contribution to excellence, innovation and competitiveness of EHEA and Research Area 2. Partnership experience and composition 25 % Adequacy of partnership to the objectives > scientific excellence, education, research and innovation capacity of partners 3. European integration and functioning of the programme 20% Implementation in and between partners; delivery of doctoral programme 4. Provisions for EMJD candidates and fellowship holders 15% Overall promotion and marketing strategy; administration of fellowships; recruitement conditions; support in linguistic & career aspect and services 5. Programme Management and Quality Assurance of the EMJD 15% Organizational arrangements & cooperation mechanisms; evaluation and sustainability plans; complementary funding Joint MastersAcademic quality 30 % Course integration 25 % Course management, visibility and sustainability measures 20 % Students’ facilities and follow-up 15 % Quality assurance and evaluation 10 %

Academic quality 30% (25 EMJDs) Socio-economic needs analysis (European and worldwide), objectives – relevant EU strategies: ie Europe 2020, Bologna (but avoid «buzz») – based on objective facts; logical, scientific approach – multi-disciplinarity, newly emerging fields – objective requiring a joint approach (national not sufficient) – How is your programme answering this need – short overview (partners). Added value of this programme compared to existing programmes, European and international – Position of Europe compared to other parts of the world – Focus on European expertise and innovation potential within the field – Intra-European perspective: awareness of other similar programmes is vital Learning outcomes – Justify the relevance of LO in terms of employability and academic opportunities, assessed in comparison with the proposed content

Academic quality (2) Structure and contents – learning objectives linked to the needs defined  main teaching topics/content, partner roles – relevance of the mobility tracks (in academic terms), bringing added value, internship/placement/field work/study – EMJDs: innovative aspects, scientific quality (research methodology, approach, structure), mobility to more than one other partner assessed positively Consortium composition, academic staff – Cross-check with B.2, D.2, complementary expertise – Academic added value of 3. country partners, info on scholars Interaction with professional sector – Assessed according to objectives and needs, cross-check with B.2 – Concrete evidence should be presented in the proposal – Endorsement documents will be checked to see concrete commitment – EMJDs commitment particularly relevant: co-financing, property rights, publishing rights

Course integration 25% (EMJDs 20%) ”jointness one of the most important elements” Integrated organisation balanced academic contribution, coherence, not Coordinator-driven Recognition no non-degree-awarding partners, cross-check with e-form E Joint application/selection/admission Common criteria and weight, common procedure, composition of bodies, voting Equity, gender issues, special needs: concrete info Joint student examination methods (transparent) ECTS grading scale used (ref to 3.countries involved), conversion table Joint Diploma Supplement Joint approach to exam assessments, thesis co-supervision, joint external examinator? Justify participation costs EMMCs max €8000/year Cat A, €4000/year Cat B EMJDs free to define level, not more than the programme’s contribution, no programme restrictions linked to Cat A or B students Show calculations, same fees regardless of mobility track

Management, visibility, sustainability 20% EMMCs Cooperation mechanisms – consortium agreement essential, commitment (endors letters addressing concrete issues) – concrete student and non-academic partner involvement – For each governing body; composition, responsibility and tasks, timing of meetings Financial contributions and financial management – Cross-check with budget (EMMC A.2.5, EMJD B.3.4) and co-funding of associated partners in EMJDs(B.2.4), this section presents the co-financing part of the budget – Institutional commitment, additional funding for students Development and sustainability plan – Ensuring content relevance, building an attractive programme – Enrolment projections, prospects for securing additional scholarships Course promotion measures – Variety of measures, website crucial (incl info on selection and admission), past performance, common PR strategy +

Student services and facilities - 15% Information provided prior to enrolment – Partners, course, selection criteria, online application, personal contact, assistance with visa Student agreement – Rights and obligations: academic, administrative and financial aspects – EMJDs employment contracts, afternoon session Services – Focus on: academic counselling, guaranteed accommodation, families and special needs, particularly 3. country students (religious networks, health/psychology etc) Language policy ( courses should be free and ECTS recognised ) Networking – Common meetings intra-EM, local EM alumni/tutoring, contacts prior to arrival

Quality assurance - 10% Internal evaluation (involving beneficiaries) – ensure presentation of the whole cycle – student involvement in QA board – common discussion on Quality: how is it percieved? – teacher meetings, prof.development External quality assurance (professional bodies) – role of QA agencies, methodology used – accreditation of joint programmes JOQAR: – concrete evidence shown on external evaluation – Involvement of non-academic partners, alumni, internship tutors Consortia should aim at coherence, common mechanisms

What makes the difference ? A convincing needs analysis, clear European added value Distinctive academic quality; involved academics dynamic, internationally active with links to society and research. Clear area of expertise and complementing role of each partner. Active dialogue with the employers/surrounding society, and concrete information of their involvement. Constructive approach to past performance (renewals!) A well written proposal (links between the different parts of the proposal) and a well explained project (activities and content are clear) Evidence of a common will to build an integrated programme The opportunity for students to live a unique experience

Expert’s expectations To read something new, interesting and challenging To find the right information at the right place Not to have to search on the internet what is missing To understand what will happen during the project To feel intelligent while reading the proposal Language check important

What to do if your project is not selected – is there a plan B? Start/continue the program without the support Apply for an Erasmus curriculum reform project, or an Intensive Course Use the work as basis for a new application – NB! The 2012 Call is the last in this edition of EM! There will be a continuation within the proposed Erasmus for All Programme.

GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROPOSAL