Hi all, Need your help for review.
With over 5 years of academic background and technical innovations related to cryptography, this is how I applied and refused.
Sector: Cybersecurity
Specialist skill: Research
Education level: Master’s degree [PhD from UK is not complete]
Currently not employed
Applied from: Outside of the UK
Mandatory criteria [not met] E1. Software Engineer role in Quantum Cryptography.pdf
(I provided the contract and pay slips) while I was hired at a well-reputed university in Bristol for this role but had to leave the UK due to visa status changes. E3. Cryptography and Network Security.pdf *(for mandatory, or OC2, or OC4)
I proposed, developed, and published a few innovative toolkits (but over 5 years) while being hired as a researcher in academia. However, the impact came in the form of IEEE publication within 5 years. E9. Bristol Experience Letter.pdf
An experience letter from HR of the university.
Optional criteria 2 [not met] E3. Cryptography and Network Security.pdf *(for mandatory, or OC2, or OC4) E4. Company Private Limited CEO Letter.pdf
I led in developing and commercialing an innovative toolkit, however, failed (due to a separate reason). I see, that a similar toolkit is being used in the UK by quantum cryptography-related researchers. E5. Teaching at University-merged.pdf
beyond day-to-day as well as within routine duties. E6. International Collaborations.pdf *(for OC2, or OC4)
between the USA, China, and the UK E8. A UK based professional training institution’s letter.pdf *(for OC2, or OC4)
Having been provided voluntary services in capacity building to the people of the UK related to the technological sector.
Optional criteria 4 [met] E2. peer-reviewed journal Publications.pdf E3. Cryptography and Network Security.pdf *(for mandatory, or OC2, or OC4) E6. International Collaborations.pdf *(for OC2, or OC4) E7. Distinction in MS Electrical Engineering E8. A UK based professional training institution’s letter.pdf *(for OC2, or OC4)
It appears that your application heavily emphasizes academia, whereas Tech Nation prefers to see a diverse pool of experts endorsing you to demonstrate recognition in the sector. You could consider directing them to statements from academic referees about your contributions beyond academia if any, and also try to make a case highlighting the academia referee’s industry affiliations.
Your mandatory criteria doesn’t appear compelling enough. You should be including examples that portray your leadership and recognition. I don’t see how your contract letter as software engineer and HR experience letter satisfies this.
I noticed that many of the pieces of evidence used are repeated, and the guidelines explicitly state the need for unique pieces of evidence. It is unclear how many of these were actually considered by Tech Nation. For OC2, since you indicated Research is your specific skill and have already utilized most of these activities for OC4, they might view these as part of your main occupation. While it may be challenging to dissociate work outside your occupation from your research work, if you can do so, you might strengthen your case.
Hi Abrar, just out of curiosity, why you didn’t apply via the academic route? I think that is a more suitable route for people with academic and research background
My feedback is similar to May’s that is why I didn’t make additional comments to the post. Regarding your arguement that the guide doesn’t specify you cants use experts in academi. You need to also check that they are not all from University of Bristol. For an exceptional talent it is expected that for you to be recognised nationally or internationally, you should have a diverse pull of leaders in the sector who know your work. I think the quality of evidence compared to other applicants of similar standing may have helped the assessors to reach their decision. You clearly don’t have sufficient for the Mandatory criteria, it may be easier making a case for the optional Criteria 2. For OC2 you n we to show how these activities have advanced the sector
The experts who recommended me are all from different organizations.
I made a blunder by putting evidence repeatedly.
For mandatory criteria, what I understand is that it is the references that are not according to their expectations. The University of Bristol experience and HR letter were accepted by them. Am I right?
For OC2, would it be possible to put any positive impact on review, if I request them to consider a few evidence explicitly for OC2 (from repeated ones)?
Thru didn’t comment on the HR letter used for the mandatory criteria, it doesn’t mean it was accepted. Typically, most people use that type of criteria for OC3.
You could elaborate on your impact or explain the evidence better but you can’t introduce new evidence.
You can attempt an appeal but overall you didn’t submit a strong evidence for your application. I believe @somdipdey has a similar academic profile as yours, he applied as a PhD student. Search for his evidence then you will see yours was not compelling.This look like an application that could have been successful in 2020 not 2023. The bars for GTV are higher now
Thank you all. My last query. Can I break the reason for non-endorsement (for example for not meeting the mandatory criteria) into smaller pieces to address them separately?
