Inside the CNRS Auditions 2025
Ever wondered what a CNRS audition is like?
While 39 candidates are busy at work preparing their CNAP auditions for the adjoint astronomer positions taking place next week in Paris, we want to turn around and have a closer look at the CNRS auditions for the Chargé·e de Recherche positions that happened in the first week of April.
We contacted some of the auditioned candidates of the CNRS concours 2025, and some of them were willing to send us their personal impressions of this intense exercise. We first provide a reminder about the general audition format, followed by a number of short personal statements by audition candidates from this year. At the end of this blog post, you will find a long-form statement of one candidate providing a view on the whole concours process more broadly.
It’s a longer read today, we hope you like it!
The CNRS Audition Format
The CNRS auditions for Chargé·e de recherche de classe normale (CRCN) positions are a tightly scheduled and high-stakes part of the selection process. All auditions take place within a single week, with 44 candidates having been interviewed for just five open positions this year (excluding the poste fléché). Each candidate is assigned a 30-minute slot, which is divided into two strictly timed parts. The audition begins with a 12-minute oral presentation by the candidate, during which every second counts—going over time is not allowed. This is immediately followed by a 13-minute Q&A session with the jury. Presentation visuals must be submitted the day before in PDF format, and the system imposes a very low file size limit. This constraint effectively rules out animations and requires careful attention to image compression and formatting.
This information can be found (in French) on the concours website of the Section 17:
https://section17.obspm.fr/?page_id=8
Voices of Several Candidates
Personal experiences of this tightly scheduled process can vary from candidate to candidate, so we thought it would be valuable to let some of them speak directly. Below, you will find a number of personal impressions shared with us by some of the audition candidates of the CNRS 2025 concours for the astronomy and astrophysics section.
Candidate 1: This first account highlights how the 30-minute early arrival shapes the atmosphere before the audition, and how time flies once you enter the room:
You are asked to arrive 30 min before your audition time. So it’s a bit strange to be waiting when the candidate before you has just started his or her audition. Then it turned out that my audition was taking place just after the jury’s coffee break, which makes it even stranger to be there waiting while they chat amongst themselves. So I kept waited while they chatted and wondered why I had to be there 30 minutes early. However, they were all very nice, saying hello and asking me if I was okay and if I was ready. The interaction was so pleasant that it felt like we already knew each other even though it was the first time I’d met most of them.
Then it was my turn, and having 17 members of the jury facing you and waiting to see what you have to say can be pretty impressive. Once you’ve finished your presentation, you have to answer the questions clearly and concisely. The questions followed in a relatively quick succession, until the phone rang, indicating that the time was up (at first I thought someone had forgotten to turn off their phone!). And then it was already over, and in the end I didn’t see the time pass by at all.
Candidate 2 focuses on the interaction between the candidate and the committee during the Q&A:
You arrive at the Observatoire de Paris and wait in the entrance hall of the main building. A jury member comes out to greet you and asks you to wait until the previous candidate’s discussion ends. Then, you’re invited into a beautiful, historical room where the audition takes place. Your presentation is already set up. You give your prepared presentation to a large jury panel. The rapporteur then leads the questions, aiming to help you make your case. Other members follow with questions focused on your presentation and research. It’s intense, but the jury generally aims to understand your vision and potential.
Candidate 3 discusses how the process adapts to the virtual format for remote participants:
My audition was on Zoom, and it was well organized: you connect in advance and at the time of the audition you are accepted in the virtual room. A short intro by the host, then you start speaking (I shared my screen, so I had control over the slides). Very strict timing, then a bunch of questions from various people across the room, the end.
Tip: If you want a Zoom audition, you must put a foreign address in your application, otherwise a French address (if it’s your parents’, or whatever) equals an in-person audition and it is very tedious to change.
Long-form Statement of a 2025 CNRS Audition Candidate
To wrap up this post, we are sharing a longer and more personal reflection from one of this year’s audition candidates. They describe not just the audition itself, but also how it feels to prepare and face the outcome—plus they offer some practical advice at the end. Their story gives an honest, behind-the-scenes look at what it can feel like to go through the CNRS concours.
My experience of the CNRS concours (Section 17)
I’m happy to share a few reflections about my experience with the CNRS concours, in the hope that it might help others who are going through or planning to go through this intense process. Of course, what I write here is entirely subjective and based on my own experience, so it may not apply to everyone.
To provide some context: this was not my first time being shortlisted for the interview, and overall, I’ve been applying to the concours for a few years already. I am currently in my fifth year since finishing my PhD.
I would describe the whole experience as highly demanding, not just in terms of the work required to prepare the proposal and the interview, but also in terms of emotional and psychological investment. Writing a CNRS proposal is quite different from applying to tenure-track positions, which may be more common in other countries. The latter are framed as limited-term contracts that lead to tenure after a few years, and the proposals are supposed to cover a limited number of years and require detailed planning. By contrast, the CNRS project is broader, more long-term, and requires a different mindset. I find the writing stage already quite challenging, particularly given the page limit in Section 17 (4 pages).
As for the interview itself, it takes place at the Observatoire de Paris, in Denfert-Rochereau. I did it there in person, but there is also the option to do it remotely. [Note by the editor: Remote auditions are granted only under particular conditions, such as residency outside of France, pregnancy, or a medical indication.] Candidates are asked to arrive 30 minutes before the scheduled time. When I got there, the previous candidate was sitting outside in the garden. We had a brief chat, and I could sense that they were feeling the pressure, so I gave them space. There is no formal welcome or guidance before entering the room, so you’re pretty much left to yourself until someone comes to get you, and the interview starts immediately after that. I was lucky that it was a beautiful sunny day, and I could enjoy the calm of the garden before going in.
The interview takes place in the famous Salle du Conseil, which is indeed quite impressive, with high windows and large portraits watching over the room. Despite the slightly intimidating setting, I felt that the president and the members of the jury were trying to maintain a kind and friendly atmosphere. The entire interview happened in English. [Note by the editor: The candidate is free to choose whether to do the presentation and questions in English or French. This also applies to the application documents.] After the presentation by the candidate (12 minutes), there is a round of questions for 13 minutes. I found the vast majority of the questions to be relevant and well-aligned with the content of my presentation and proposal. The committee seemed genuinely interested in the science I presented. A question was asked about my integration with the French scientific community. However, I had the impression that international collaborations were not given much weight.
Personally, I felt calm and clear-headed during the interview. I left with the feeling that I had done my best and that the experience had been positive overall. In any case, I was not hired.
After the results were published, I requested feedback from the committee. Apparently, the candidates are only allowed to receive feedback from one member of the committee, so I did that. We had a call on Zoom for about 30 minutes. I have to say that it was at this point that it became more difficult to cope with the disappointment and frustration. The feedback I received had very little to do with my proposal or my presentation, or even my profile as a scientist. It was rather vague and felt disconnected from anything I could meaningfully act on. It left me with the impression that above a certain threshold of quality, selection depends more on factors outside your control than on the strength of your application. One ultimately has to wait for the stars to align to make it, and it is not clear whether this will happen. It is not easy to accept that, even if I understand how competitive the process is and how difficult the selection task of the committee is.
I would be interested in knowing if there is any data about the effects this process has on the mental health of the candidates, because I believe it can have strong repercussions. In terms of mental health, this situation is fueling impostor syndrome, and it is very easy to think that you are simply “not good enough”, especially if one is not shortlisted for an interview. There is a general narrative that “the best candidates will be selected” but the criteria of selection are quite vague and they can be reconfigured depending on the choices that the committee ultimately makes. Unlike other competitive selections, no written or formal report is shared about your proposal, and from year to year, the criteria remain a bit opaque, or at least difficult to grasp from the outside.
I don’t want to sound entirely negative. For example, the work done for the concours (writing the proposal, preparing for the interview) can always be useful elsewhere. But I do believe we need more honest conversations around this process.
My suggestions (from one of the unsuccessful candidates) are:
→ Ask for help as much as possible, from as many people as you can. Let colleagues from your lab and even “outsiders” (meaning people outside your specific field or outside the French academic system) read your proposal and give feedback on both the content and the presentation.
→ Do not take this personally. This is a psychologically demanding process, but the outcome is not a judgment on your worth as a researcher, and certainly not as a person. It may sound trivial, but I think it’s important to keep reminding ourselves of this.
→ Share your thoughts and feelings with your peers. The academic environment is already hyper-competitive. I genuinely believe that, even as competitors, we can still support one another and try to mitigate the more toxic elements of this process.
→ Choose your proposed hosting laboratory carefully. The support of the lab is key, and I think it is fair to ask them to be honest and transparent about the level of support they are giving you.
→ Be persistent and try to stay positive. Even if the outcome is not what you hoped for, the work you’ve done for the concours can still be valuable for other applications and opportunities, or for the next round.
Lastly, I believe it is important to have people sharing their stories throughout this journey, not just the successful ones. I think there is a strong “survivor bias” in the narratives we typically hear, and it is helpful and healthy to open up space for the full range of experiences.
We hope that these accounts from people who went through the CNRS audition process this year give you a better understanding of what to expect, and how to prepare. If you have any questions or would like to share your own experiences, feel free to reach out to us (astroconcours@gmail.com). We hope we will continue to see you on this blog!
