MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowship: How Supervisor Match Makes or Breaks Your Application

In September 2025, the European Commission received 17,058 proposals for the MSCA postdoctoral fellowship (Marie Curie fellowship)—the highest submission count in the 40-year history of EU research funding. With roughly 1,650 projects expected to receive funding, the success rate has dropped to approximately 9.7%. That's a 64.6% increase in applications from the previous year, while the funding pot remains essentially flat.

What separates the 9.7% who succeed from everyone else? It's tempting to assume it's the quality of the research idea. But the Marie Curie fellowship evaluation framework tells a different story. The Excellence criterion—which counts for 50% of your total score—doesn't just assess your proposed research. It explicitly evaluates "the quality of the supervision, training and of the two-way transfer of knowledge between the researcher and the host."

This is what makes the Marie Curie fellowship fundamentally different from most research grants. In an ERC Starting Grant or NIH R01, you're essentially saying: I have a brilliant idea and the skills to execute it. In the Marie Curie fellowship, you're saying something more nuanced: I have a promising research direction, and this specific supervisor at this specific institution will transform my capacity to execute it—while I contribute something unique to their environment.

The supervisor match, then, isn't just one component of your application—it's the architectural foundation that shapes everything else. Get it wrong, and even the most innovative research idea will struggle to score above threshold. Get it right, and your Marie Curie fellowship proposal gains a structural coherence that evaluators notice immediately.

The Uncomfortable Truth About Famous Supervisors in MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowship Applications

Let's address the elephant in the room. Most MSCA postdoctoral fellowship applicants assume that securing a famous supervisor—someone with a high h-index, major grants, or a name that reviewers will recognize—automatically strengthens their application. The data suggests otherwise.

A 2018 study in Nature Communications analyzing 18,856 researchers found something counterintuitive: what predicted career success in postdoc fellowship positions wasn't mentor prestige, but intellectual synthesis. Researchers who trained under mentors with disparate expertise—and integrated that knowledge—significantly outperformed those whose PhD and postdoc supervisors had similar research profiles. In fact, researchers who trained under mentors with overlapping expertise showed "hindered career growth regardless of mentor track record."

This doesn't mean famous supervisors are bad. A 2020 PNAS study found that protégés of future prize-winning mentors were 3-5x more likely to achieve academic stardom—but the mechanism wasn't prestige transfer. It was a "hidden capability" in creating and communicating breakthrough research that mentors actually transmitted to their trainees through direct interaction.

The distinction matters enormously for Marie Curie fellowship applicants. A famous supervisor who nominally hosts you but provides no genuine training is worse than useless—it's actively harmful. Evaluators are trained to spot the mismatch between stated supervision arrangements and realistic expectations. As one REA guidance document puts it, supervisors must demonstrate they have "the time, knowledge, experience, expertise and commitment to be able to offer the appropriate support."

A supervisor running five concurrent ERC grants with 30 postdocs may have impressive credentials. But can they realistically provide weekly supervision? Evaluators will ask themselves this question. So should you.

What Marie Curie Fellowship Evaluators Actually Look For

The official REA Manual for Evaluators describes scientific supervision as "a crucial element for a successful MSCA PF." But what does that mean in practice? The evaluation under Excellence criterion 1.3 specifically assesses:

The fourth element—two-way transfer—is where many Marie Curie fellowship applicants stumble. It's not enough to explain what you'll learn. You need to articulate what the host gains from having you there. Maybe you bring expertise in a methodology they want to develop. Maybe you have access to datasets or field sites unavailable to them. Maybe your previous training fills a gap in their research portfolio.

Analysis of actual Evaluation Summary Reports reveals consistent criticism patterns. The most frequent negatives include: "training activities not described with enough details," supervisor expertise that "doesn't align with the proposal topic," and failure to specify meeting frequency. One NCP Handbook explicitly advises that meetings should be "weekly or bi-weekly and not monthly"—evaluators notice when you're vague about this.

How to Find the Right Supervisor for Your Marie Curie Fellowship

Finding the right supervisor isn't like applying for a job where you respond to a posting. It's more like a targeted courtship—one that should begin 7-8 months before the deadline if you don't already have an established relationship.

A successful Global Fellowship applicant who scored 98/100 shared candidly: "You do not need to have a previous connection with a supervisor. Clearly, like everything in academia, if you have a good network already, it is easier... but you can just email people. For example, I didn't know my Italian supervisor, but I liked her work and contacted her."

When preparing your initial contact for an MSCA postdoctoral fellowship, the CIVIS Alliance recommendations suggest including: a brief introduction specifying your target panel and confirming MSCA eligibility (PhD status, 8-year rule, mobility requirement), an updated academic CV of maximum 5 pages, a motivation statement explaining why this supervisor and institution, and a research proposal example of 1-2 pages identifying research synergies.

Generic emails get ignored. Reference specific papers or projects from their recent work. Explain concretely why your backgrounds complement each other. If you've read their latest article in Nature Communications and see how your expertise in X could extend their work on Y—say so.

That last red flag deserves emphasis. If a potential supervisor treats the training components as bureaucratic checkbox items rather than genuine value, that attitude will show in your proposal—and evaluators will notice. The Marie Curie fellowship isn't just looking for a research project; it's looking for a training relationship that advances your career development.

Negotiating Genuine Mentorship in Your Postdoc Fellowship

There's an awkward dance in Marie Curie fellowship applications. You need a supervisor whose name and credentials strengthen your proposal. But you also need someone who will actually supervise you—not just sign the paperwork and disappear. How do you navigate this tension?

The first step is being honest with yourself about what you want. If you're genuinely seeking intensive training to develop new skills, a famous-but-absent supervisor is a terrible fit regardless of how much their name might help your application. If you're already quite independent and primarily need institutional affiliation and resources, the calculus changes—though you'll still need to present convincing supervision arrangements.

Early conversations with potential supervisors should establish expectations explicitly. How often do they typically meet with their postdocs? What's their philosophy on independence versus direction? Do they have examples of former postdocs who've gone on to independent positions? What happened to their previous Marie Curie fellowship holders, if any?

If a supervisor seems reluctant to commit to regular meetings or concrete training activities, you have several options. One is to add a co-supervisor or secondary mentor—someone who can provide the day-to-day guidance the main supervisor won't. This is explicitly encouraged in Marie Curie fellowship guidance, provided you clearly articulate each person's role and added value. If your potential supervisor has limited experience supervising at postdoctoral level, the NTNU annotated template advises considering "an additional, more experienced supervisor or 'mentor.'"

Another option is to lean heavily on institutional training structures. Does the host university have a structured postdoc development program? Career services? Mentoring networks? These can compensate for gaps in individual supervision—but only if you reference them specifically in your proposal, with course titles, instructors, and timing. Consider how different advisor archetypes shape supervision styles and align with your career goals.

Institutional and Cultural Differences

Supervision culture varies dramatically across European research systems. Understanding these differences helps you set realistic expectations and write proposals that reflect what will actually happen.

Research group size creates additional trade-offs worth considering. European research groups can be large—potentially 30+ researchers under one principal investigator. In these environments, "much more effort is required to take responsibility, get noticed by the famous PI, and even secure a good recommendation letter." Daily supervision often comes from postdocs or junior faculty rather than the PI themselves.

For your MSCA postdoctoral fellowship application, this means being realistic in your supervision section. If you're joining a large group, acknowledge the structure honestly. Explain that you'll have weekly meetings with a senior postdoc or junior faculty member for day-to-day guidance, with monthly strategic sessions with the PI. This is more credible than claiming the head of a 30-person lab will meet you weekly. If you're coming from a famous lab, articulate how you'll build independence in the new environment.

Writing the Marie Curie Fellowship Supervision Section

The supervision section of your Marie Curie fellowship proposal must demonstrate four things simultaneously: genuine commitment from your supervisor, appropriate expertise alignment, specific training activities, and credible two-way knowledge transfer. Here's how to structure it for maximum impact in your Horizon Europe application.

What does evaluator feedback actually look like for Marie Curie fellowships? Positive comments from Evaluation Summary Reports include: "The supervisor's experience and track record is of high quality and in line with the proposed research. The supervisor has comprehensive experience in supervising PhD and post-doctoral fellows." And: "A very clear and detailed case is made for personal development by the acquisition of new technical and transferable skills."

Negative comments are equally instructive: "The training activities for the researcher are not described with enough details. It is not sufficiently clear how the researcher will be trained at the host institution and gain key transferable skills." And: "Due to the limited number of publications and expertise of the supervisor in the proposal's field, the proposal does not convincingly describe how the supervisor can support the improvement of the researcher's skills."

Notice the pattern. Evaluators want specificity, alignment, and credibility. They're looking for evidence that you've thought carefully about how this particular supervisor will advance your particular development—not generic statements that could apply to anyone.

The Letter of Commitment

For Global Fellowships, the letter of commitment from your outgoing-phase host isn't just helpful—it's mandatory. Without it, your proposal is declared inadmissible before evaluation. For non-academic placements in European Fellowships, letters are required to have the placement evaluated; proposals lacking them will be assessed without considering the placement.

A proper letter of commitment for your Marie Curie fellowship should include: institution heading or official stamp, current date (not before call publication), explicit statement of willingness to participate in the identified proposal, description of the organization's specific role and contribution, and an authorized signature from someone entitled to commit the organization.

For co-supervision arrangements, the 2025 NCP Handbook advises that "co-supervision is possible, but the respective roles of both the main and co-supervisor should be clearly defined and complementary." Co-supervisors can come from the same research team or from a completely different field relevant to a multidisciplinary project. The key is demonstrating added value—how the co-supervisor's expertise complements rather than duplicates the main supervisor's capabilities.

What Happens After the Marie Curie Fellowship Award

Securing the Marie Curie fellowship is only the beginning. The MSCA requires a Career Development Plan as a mandatory deliverable by Month 6—and this document emerges directly from the supervision relationship you've established.

Post-fellowship outcomes for Marie Curie fellowship holders are generally strong. Survey data from over 15,000 respondents shows that more than 90% perceived "very good or good impact" on their personal and professional development. 93% of Individual Fellows were employed within 2 years of completing their fellowship, with 85% remaining in academia. Among those moving outside academia, 48% entered the private sector.

But these averages mask significant variation. Fellows who actively engaged with their supervision arrangements—regular meetings, structured training, genuine mentorship—report better outcomes than those who experienced the fellowship as a nominally supervised independent project. The supervision quality you negotiate at the start shapes the value you extract throughout your postdoc fellowship.

The Strategic Perspective: Your Marie Curie Fellowship Journey

The Marie Curie fellowship (MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowship) sits in an interesting strategic position for early-career researchers. It's not the only path—there are national fellowship schemes, institutional postdoc positions, and other EU funding instruments. But it offers something distinctive: a structured framework for acquiring new capabilities while maintaining research independence within the Horizon Europe ecosystem.

For researchers coming from outside Europe, the MSCA postdoctoral fellowship provides a legitimate pathway to establish a European foothold. For those already in Europe, it forces beneficial mobility—the eligibility rules require that you move to a country where you haven't resided for more than 12 months in the past 3 years. This geographic disruption, while sometimes inconvenient, is precisely what the evidence on early-career funding trajectories suggests produces the best outcomes. Compare with other options in the global postdoc fellowship landscape.

The supervisor relationship is central to realizing this potential. A well-chosen supervisor doesn't just improve your MSCA postdoctoral fellowship proposal score—they position you for what comes next. Their network becomes partly your network. Their institutional knowledge becomes your institutional knowledge. Their track record of placing trainees in permanent positions becomes your pathway to a permanent position.

But this only works if the mentorship is genuine. A nominal supervisor who signs papers but provides no engagement gives you a fellowship but not a launchpad. As you navigate the Marie Curie fellowship application process, keep asking yourself: Will this person actually help me become a more capable researcher? Will working with them open doors that matter for my career? If the honest answer is no, keep looking—even if their credentials seem perfect on paper.

The 9.7% who succeed in this postdoc fellowship competition aren't just lucky. They've found supervisors who genuinely want to train them, at institutions that genuinely support their development, for projects that genuinely advance both parties' research agendas. The proposal reflects this authenticity. Evaluators can tell the difference between a manufactured match and a real one.

Finding that match takes time—7-8 months isn't excessive for a successful Marie Curie fellowship application. It takes honesty about what you want from supervision. It takes willingness to ask uncomfortable questions about availability and commitment. And it takes the strategic perspective to recognize that the right supervisor for your MSCA might not be the most famous name in your field.

The supervisor match that makes your Marie Curie fellowship application isn't about prestige. It's about fit, availability, genuine engagement, and mutual benefit. Get that right, and you're not just improving your proposal score—you're setting up the fellowship to actually transform your career in the ways the MSCA program intends.