Case review and opinions

Stage 1
1

Hi everyone!
I’m working on my application and I’ve structured my evidence in a way that I hope meets the requirements, but I’m unsure about a few things and would love your input!

Here’s my current evidence structure:

Recommendation Letters:

  1. First recommendation: From the CEO of the company where I led and developed an AI system, which is part of the innovation evidence under OC1.

  2. Second recommendation: From my current CEO, highlighting my work on various AI projects, including the one mentioned under OC1.

  3. Third recommendation: From the Dean of my university, who supervised my role as a teaching assistant and was also my graduation project supervisor. This recommendation addresses both my academic contributions and my professional experience.

Mandatory Criteria (MC):

  • First Inventor of a Patent: I’m the first inventor of a patent for an AI engine designed for the manufacturing industry. The patent is published by the USPTO, and I have included public details and system architecture to demonstrate my technical contributions.

  • TEDx Talk: I was invited to give a TEDx talk where I discussed my journey, experience, and contributions in the AI field. This talk highlights my leadership and influence in AI innovation.

  • High Salary Evidence: I have provided evidence of earning significantly more than the average salary in my country, though I’m uncertain if it would qualify as “high” in an international context. I have also included data from online salary reports and platforms like Glassdoor for validation.

Optional Criteria:

OC1 (Innovation):

  • AI System in Transportation: I led the development of an innovative AI system in the transportation domain. This system was a new solution in the local market and has been applied to two of the largest startups in my country. It has been operational for over four years. I have included a recommendation letter from the CEO of one of the companies that implemented the system (separate from the other recommendation letters).

  • Domain-Dependent Virtual Agent: At my current company, I developed a virtual agent system that accelerates AI-driven innovation for several companies within a specific industry. This product is designed to be versatile and has already facilitated AI integration across multiple businesses. In addition to a recommendation letter from the CEO, I have also included an SR & ED tax credit notice, which validates the innovation and technical contribution of the product.

OC3 (Work Beyond My Occupation):

  • Unpaid University Teaching Assistant: I voluntarily taught more than 1,000 senior students in areas like AI, machine learning, and related technologies at a university.

  • Talks to Inspire Young Students: I delivered three talks at schools to encourage and inspire students to pursue careers in IT, technology, and AI.

  • Talks for Professionals: I also gave two talks aimed at professionals, focusing on career development, the use of AI tools to enhance career progression, and how to manage multiple roles within the tech industry.

My Questions:

  1. Does my evidence structure make sense and clearly meet the criteria, or should I tweak anything?

  2. My salary is much higher than the average in my country, but it might be considered average internationally. Do you think the online salary reports I’ve included (e.g., Glassdoor) are enough to demonstrate exceptional talent, or should I present this differently?

  3. I have a research paper under review in a reputable journal on AI safety. Since I didn’t select the academic criteria (OC4), can I still mention this in my personal statement or under OC1 (Innovation)? Could it strengthen my case even though it’s still under review?

  4. The product tied to my patent has evolved. Should I include the updated technical details in both the Mandatory Criteria (MC) and Optional Criteria (OC1), or is it better to focus on one?

  5. How detailed should my technical descriptions of AI systems be? Should I stick to high-level overviews or go deeper into the technical details?

  6. Is it okay to use the same evidence, like my patent, TEDx talk, and teaching assistant work, for both MC and the relevant Optional Criteria (OC1, OC3)? Would this show the depth of my contributions or is it better to avoid overlap?

Any thoughts or advice would be super helpful! Thanks so much!

2

Hi @monash

  • were the engagement numbers on the TED talk significant? IMO you can have 1 more strong MC evidence piece to make the whole set stronger.

  • what you have mentioned as OC3 is actually OC2. The talks/speaking events need to be at leading digital technology events as per TN guidelines. You can also club both your talks in a single evidence doc, the two talks currently do not look very significant to be covered in two separate docs. Was the teaching gig structured and based on selection?

  • you can mention the journal under review as an add-on in MC perhaps. It may not be considered since it’s under review but can mention nonetheless as part of an existing evidence doc (not as a standalone)

  • all evidence docs should be unique hence you cannot use an evidence in two different criterias.

  • depth and detail of work depends on to what extent does it prove your significant contribution to it. As per TN guidelines, they do appreciate details like architecture diagrams etc.

1 Like