Advice for applying to the CNRS
In this document, I will present a compilation of advice and feedback I received while applying for Chargé de Recherche at CNRS, particularly in Mathematics (section 01). This will be mixed with personal thoughts and preferences, so as with all advice, only take home what resonates with you. The application process is demanding and very competitive, but the job is truly wonderful!
The Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique is the French national research agency. CNRS researchers are appointed to specific labs, but depend only on the CNRS, so there are procedures to change labs. CNRS researchers have no compulsory teaching and are capped to 64h of teaching per year. They enjoy total research freedom, and their positions are tenured.
The CNRS has two main types of researchers: Chargé de Recherche (CR), which is the entry-level position (comparable to tenured Assistant Professors or Maîtres de Conférences (MCF)). This document focuses on the application for this position. The second type is Directeur de Recherche (DR), which is a more senior position (comparable to full Professors or Professeurs des Universités).
The CNRS is divided into ‘‘sections’’, which encompass different research fields (see this website). I applied to section 01 and section 03: 01 is called Mathématiques et interactions des Mathématiques and covers all fields of Mathematics. 03 is called Sciences informatiques : signaux, images, langues, automatique, robotique, interactions, systèmes intégrés matériel-logiciel and covers numerous fields between Computer Science, Data Science and Applied Mathematics (I personally fit the most in the Signal Processing sub-group).
Within the CR positions open for application, there are different types (listed on the section website). Some have an imposed
To start a position in October of year $n$, the process begins in December of the year $n-1$. The following timeline is approximative and may vary, refer to the official CNRS application website and to the specific CNRS section website: section 01.
Ask for a LOT of feedback. At all stages of writing your application and preparing your audition, ask for feedback from multiple people, ideally people who applied to CNRS in the same section and people who have jury experience. The application process has numerous unsaid codes and habits that you should know ahead of time (I will try my best to document them here). Ask for people’s written applications and slides to understand the codes and styles. Remember that your application should remain very personal, only follow advice that you deeply agree with.
Starting in around September of year $n-1$, reach out to labs to signal that you want to apply. In your application, you should list two or three labs (and not all in the same French région) where you would like to be assigned. It is very important to meet the team and potential collaborators, for three reasons. 1: they will help you with the application (proofreading, rehearsals…). 2: this will help you find a lab that suits you. 3: this will strength the “integration” part of your application.
The official criteria can be found here for section 01 and here for CNRS in general. It is very difficult to compare research profiles, but the gist of it is that they want to recruit people who have a clear, valuable and credible research plan for a long time (in the application you are expected to formulate a 10-year research project, but obviously you would be hired for a full career).
Know your audience. First, the jury list is public (section 01 jury). The process for assessing written applications varies and is specific to each section, but in section 01, the idea is that out of the ~20 members, one or two is assigned to each candidate (based on expertise). These “reviewers” will read your application thoroughly and will attempt to convince the rest of the jury (non-experts). Your goal is to be convincing to an expert, but to explain things in a clear and pedagogical way so that your reviewer can defend your application in front of non-expert mathematicians. One of your reviewers will be at your hearing, the other members being potentially from far away fields (in section 01).
Use colours, illustrations, visual aids, anything to make your documents / slides easier to follow. It takes a long time to craft the perfect illustration for your point, and it is worth it. Remember that the jury comb through ~40 times more applications than there are positions, so they need to be convinced very efficiently.
Don’t show off, instead convey enthusiasm.
Have an up-to-date and appealing website (the jury, and prospective collaborators, will look you up).
Some additional resources:
The list of required documents is listed in the application portal, but the most important two are the following (ordered by decreasing importance):
The research project is a ~10-page document which presents a ~10-year project. You should divide it into 2 or 3 greater directions, subdivided into a few smaller questions with a VERY clear motivation and strategy. It should be abundantly clear in the strategy that the plan is profoundly yours and corresponds to your skills (as supported by your previous and ongoing works). The order and degree of risk / difficulty of each objective should be clarified and well thought-out. A possible choice is to have a short highlighted paragraph for each sub-objective explaining the goal and the techniques. This paragraph should be accessible to a non-expert and be very carefully worded. At the end of the research project, you need to include an “integration project” in each of the 2-3 labs of your wishlist, listing and motivating future collaborations. The accessibility / technicality balance is very difficult to tune, you should make it clear that you will develop and use novel and profound mathematics, but also give a general understanding of why that matters in the grand scheme of your field (and maybe applications, depending on your profile). Only go into technical detail if it is absolutely required for the understanding of your project.
The research summary is a ~10-page document which presents your past research, highlighting what questions you answered, why they are important and (indirectly) what your expertise is. I think of this document as a proof of credibility of your ability to conduct your research project, but be careful to be sufficiently pedagogical. If you did work beyond publishing papers, mention it here: organising events, publishing code, involvement in the scientific community…
Your research project is extremely important. It is also a useful exercise for your future research (at CNRS or elsewhere), but takes a long time to produce (mine took over 2 months, but I am a perfectionist). You have to be ambitious and aim high, but at the end of the day, the jury is not looking for hot-shot show-offs, rather (to my understanding) it is preferable to build a deep long-term research vision. They know that research is unpredictable and that problems are always harder than expected, so tackle the exercise with humility and realism. In my opinion, a project that is convincing and very clear is much better than a groundbreaking unintelligible project. When proof-reading your documents, ask yourself (and your proof-readers) “could this be explained better? What are the research questions? Why are they important? How will I tackle them?”
In section 01, the audition is formatted as a 10-min presentation followed by ~10min of questions. This is incredibly short, and your task is to be remembered. Your research identity (expertise and project) should be a clear and lasting memory. You need to know your text very precisely (it doesn’t have to be by heart necessarily but the key words and sentences need to be exact), leave no room for error or uncertainty. Do not drown the jury in equations and technicalities, you want them to grasp the general ideas and your goals must be extremely clear and memorable. In particular, you must prove that your research is unique: that you tackle problems that interest your community, but that your approach is novel and corresponds to your personal expertise.
Your slides really have to be gorgeous and purposeful. Here is a possible plan:
About half your time should be dedicated to your research project, it is the most important part of your presentation (and of your future job in any case!). Prepare additional supporting material, and if possible, find a way of accessing each slide quickly.
Rehearse many many many times with different people to gather perspective and prepare for questions. Know your rehearsal preferences and make sure you are fresh and happy on the day of the presentation (for many people, over-rehearsing can be demoralising and soul-crushing). Be genuinely hyped about your research!