Not endorsed (Within U.K.). Need your thoughts

[nileshredz]

Hi Everyone,

Just need some guidance on the feedback given (Exceptional Promise). Applied on 16th September, Monday.

“Evidence provided related to applicant’s endeavours whilst he was a student”

What does that mean?
I’ve seen individuals getting endorsement while they’re doing PhD on a Student Visa. Aren’t they students?
Also, I graduated in November 2022. The evidence provided was nowhere when I was a student. Also, It’s no longer an “Endevour” and it’s operational.

Also, quite a lot of the evidence provided
includes forms not acceptable to Tech Nation (for example, social media exchanges and external links)
The articles are online and they would be links. I did provide the screenshot.

Also, As per the guide the links are acceptable. I don’t understand why there’s a resistance to consider. It’s an application for Digital Technology Sector so, you would expect links. Why contradict your own words ?

Regarding the mandatory criteria, the applicant has provided three letters of recommendation. One is
from his academic professor and this letter is complimentary about the applicant’s strong technical skills
which include a number of programming languages. The other two letters are from customers of the
applicant’s employer [Company Name]. These referees have been on the receiving end of the applicant’s
technical skills coaching and they are not appropriate as referees in this visa process. Three
appropriate letters are required. Furthermore, none of the letters suitably identify how the applicant has
the potential to be a leading talent at the national or international forefront in his chosen niche within the
digital technology sector.

In the guide, It mentions that the referee must know my work. What’s wrong if a Head of Technology and Head of Architecture (I’m coaching them) provide me a LOR. They know my work, they would be the best ones to know about me and they did talk discuss about my potential in ML/AI. I don’t understand why they aren’t appropriate ?

“The applicant has included a link to his GitHub account but the activity is not at the level expected for an EP awardee and his salary, although respectable, is not high for London. Finally, the awards evidenced are not eligible as we look for individual and personal recognition. Due to the lack of evidence, we are unable to award the mandatory criteria”

The GitHub Link was in my Resume. I didn’t provided it as an evidence.
For the recognition I provided links to the them published in Norway and UK and it does include my name.

Isn’t that considered recognition of my work ?

OC2 requires two eligible examples. The TCET email does not name the applicant and we do not
believe the training course delivered will have been field advancing. Also, the example relating to
Employability Skills Development is not eligible as it is not focused sufficiently on advancement of skills
within the digital technology sector. We are unable to award OC2.

The training was on Machine Learning and Tableau, Isn’t that an advance field ?

Isn’t enhancing computer programming skills considered advancement in Digital Technology sector?

The ASV Competition was Technical Report published in the University. No explanation on how it does not meet the requirement.

I would really love to know your thoughts and suggestions please.

[airah]

Sorry to hear about the outcome @nileshredz, you could tag some of the prominent members on the forum that may be able to help review.

When did you receive the decision email, if you don’t mind sharing?

[pahuja]

Hi @nileshredz sorry about the outcome!

I think the feedback is self-explanatory:

1. The minimum number of valid evidences needed per criteria is 2 which looks like flagged in both OCs.

2. Advancement of skills is not considered a valid OC4 evidence: just because you enhanced your skill doesn’t mean the digital sector got advanced because of your upskilling. Upskilling is personal to you for being more employable. You need to show evidence of how your personal contribution led to advancement of the sector.

3. Was the speaking link the link to video of you as a main speaker at a leading digital tech event with 100+ attendees where you were a main stage speaker?

4. Your LORs seem to have lacked depth on your significant contributions and quantified impacts. Two people who you are coaching is not a good set of recommenders because they have redundant connection to you plus ideally recommenders should have worked with you and can talk highly and in detail about quality and impact of your personal work.

5. Appeal is free of cost and you can appeal if you disagree with the assessors feedback and guide their attention to relevant parts of your original application which answers what they have raised as rejection basis.

Hope this helps! Good luck.

[nileshredz]

Hi @pahuja,

Hope you’re well and thanks for your response. I know it takes efforts mentally to provide guidance to such feedback and you’ve always helped.

1. The minimum number of valid evidences needed per criteria is 2 which looks like flagged in both OCs.

OC2.1. Google Drive & One Drive Link (Just in case) to the workshop I delivered on Machine Learning and Tableau.
OC2.2. Screenshots of me delivering those sessions having more than 110 participants & Feedback from students.
O2.3. Appreciation mail from a T&P doesn’t include my name as they called me Sir.

I still have 2 valid evidence for OC2 since OC2.3. doesn’t include my name.

OC4.1. Confirmation letter from “Journal of
Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research” on publishing my paper. It has around 700
downloads.
OC4.2.: The ASV(Autonomous Surface Vehicle) Technical Report published in the U.K. University under the Research Output category. [As per feedback they didn’t consider without any explanation].
Since there are two relevant & suitable evidences for OC4.I do meet the OC4 criteria.

2. Advancement of skills is not considered a valid OC4 evidence: just because you enhanced your skill doesn’t mean the digital sector got advanced because of your upskilling. Upskilling is personal to you for being more employable. You need to show evidence of how your personal contribution led to advancement of the sector.

For OC2 I shared about upskilling other which was outside my immediate job. I didn’t use my personal upskilling as evidence.

3. Was the speaking link the link to video of you as a main speaker at a leading digital tech event with 100+ attendees where you were a main stage speaker?

I was the main speaker with about 150 participants in the call.

4. Your LORs seem to have lacked depth on your significant contributions and quantified impacts. Two people who you are coaching is not a good set of recommenders because they have redundant connection to you plus ideally recommenders should have worked with you and can talk highly and in detail about quality and impact of your personal work.

Possibly (According to them) but they’re still appropriate. In the guide it says each person should be senior member of their organisation and know my work, which they are with more than 10 years of experience. They did discuss about the ASV project winning a “Team Sprit Award” and “Sportsmanship award” in Norway. So the LORs are detailed.
(Sorry but to be fair, Even someone’s immediate Line Managers wouldn’t be aware of their work.)

5. Appeal is free of cost and you can appeal if you disagree with the assessors feedback and guide their attention to relevant parts of your original application which answers what they have raised as rejection basis.

I did appeal yesterday and shared my views. Hoping to receive a positive response.

Thanks.

[nileshredz]

Yesterday is when I received the decision letter.

[pahuja]

OC2.1 is not a valid evidence either like OC2.3 - TN has mentioned multiple times that google drive links are not considered - reason being they can be modified. When they say links, they mean links to public non-modifiable evidences eg. Websites, links to published youtube videos or published on any social channel.

Also: did your OC2.1 only have two links in 3 pages?

Upskilling even outside your job doesn’t lead to advancement of digital sector. Hope you are able to see why: I can do a data analytics certification today, how am I adding to the advancement of the sector with getting certified?

You can include OC4 explanation in your appeal.

The speaking engagement needs to be a leading industry tech event. If the call falls in this category you can include the same in your appeal.

You can include the recommender explanations in the appeal.

If you have already submitted the appeal, it is of limited use for getting opinions here. Best to wait and wish for the best! Good luck

[nileshredz]

They do ask for link to the video though. One of the examples from OC2 they mentioned in the guide

If I modify the file, The link also changes for Google Drive or One Drive. So it’s unmodifiable. The evidence has two links in 1 page with description.

Again, I’m delivering the workshop to others. I’m upskilling others beyond my job.
Again, from the guide:

[pahuja]

The link to the drive doesn’t change, the link to the specific document might. If you add or remove anything from a drive the link to drive doesn’t change.

Anyway like I mentioned there’s no point asking opinion here when you have already submitted. It’s upto TN to consider your highlighted points.

Good luck!