Hi all,
@Francisca_Chiedu @alexnk @alex_james
Today, I received a rejection which I will like to appeal. All criteria (MC, OC2 and OC3) were rejected. This is even worse than the first time I applied.
Details about my application
Letters of Recommendations
- From my ex-team lead and now CTO of my prev company
- Goes into detail about my technical work at the company
- From a current startup founder, and mentor
- Goes into detail about my career
- From a senior colleague at my current company
MC Documents
- Proof of speaking engagement
- Includes link to video conference
- Silver award won in kaggle competition
- Bronze award won in kaggle competition
OC2 Documents
- Evidence of a mentorship programme (KaggleX) with two mentees assigned by the programme themselves.
- Evidence of a mentorship programme (Society of Petroleum Engineers) for their technical week where they built technical products for the energy industry
- Evidence of speaking with high viewership
OC3 Documents
- Link to github for a code I wrote for a startup with links to the page viewership. I was the sole programmer. It wouldn’t exist without me
- Link to github code for a product I wrote for a previous startup. I was the lead. It wouldn’t exist without me.
- Reference letter from former HR detailing my contribution to the work and admitting I was the lead to it
This is the feedback I received
This is how I plan on appealing
Appeal Idea
The letter of recommendation authored by XXXX is not suitable for consideration; the author does not have detailed knowledge of the applicant’s work over a period of 12 months, and their letter simply outlines the applicant’s career to date.
I think it is unfortunate that the assessor feels this way. XXXX, as he stated in his LOR has been a guide to me all through my career. Kindly see where he wrote “I have known me since he was getting started with the tech world. I was a mentor and guide to him, providing assistance…”. He then went ahead to talk about the petroleum engineering softwares I built. It is important for the assessor to note that during this time, I was not employed in any startup, so me building all those softwares for PhD students, it was through his guidance. This means that he has detailed knowledge of the work I did throughout that period which spanned about 2 years. And of all my recommenders, he is the one who has known me the longest. I believe this qualifies him to write a review about me and not be rejected
Regarding the Mandatory Criteria, the evidence does not meet the requirements of the criteria. While placements in Kaggle competitions are welcome, they are not a relevant indicator of recognition since dozens of silver and bronze places may be awarded in any given competition.
This is equivalent to saying that speaking at a high-profile event is not a relevant indicator of recognition since multiple speakers may speak at any high-profile event. Kaggle is the biggest machine learning competition platform in the world with over 200,000 participants where people with advanced degrees and experiences come to compete and in every competition, only top 10% are awarded. In the two competitions I presented, I ended up in top 5% (silver) out of over 6000 competitors and top 10% (bronze) out of over 2000 competitors respectively. The assessor has unjustly assessed the talent involved in winning a medal in a kaggle competition, and the recognition that the award brings. I have also seen multiple people who applied for tech nation using kaggle and zindi medals and were accepted. If speaking at high-profile events despite there being multiple speakers is recognized, then winning medals at high-profile competition like kaggle should also be recognized
Regarding Optional Criteria 2, the applicant has presented evidence of mentorship on behalf of a structured programme with selection criteria, however only two mentees were involved, so it cannot be reasonably argued that the applicant contributed to the advancement of the sector
We note evidence of mentoring on behalf of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, but this is far more likely to contribute to the petroleum industry, and only tangentially to the digital technology sector
For the first part, the assessor has unfairly placed a limit where the tech nation guide does not do so. In the TN guide there is no “minimum number of mentees” for mentorship. Besides, the mentees were assigned by the programme and not by the choice of the mentors, so they ensured an equal split, therefore, it is unfair to judge me based on that. If I was allowed to choose, I would have taken more. Also, I strongly believe that it is unfair to dynamically set a limit. if I had chosen to take 10, would this have qualified me? What of someone that takes 9, does it disqualify them? 3? 6? While there are limits placed in lots of other criteria in the guide, there is none placed here. All that is stated is that it must be part of a structured programme, of which this is, and it lasted for 15 weeks.
For the second part, I admit that this majorly contributes to energy, and there is only a tangential contribution to the tech sector, but I this is also a way to teach people tech skills and kick-off an interest in them which was also achieved.
The evidence regarding XXXX does not demonstrate the significant impact of the applicant’s work; page views and unique visitors does not mean the applicant’s work was impactful.
The evidence regarding YYYY does not the demonstrate significant impact of the applicant’s work; the reference letter from YYZZ simply states that the applicant contributed to these products, and they generate revenues - there is no indication regarding the significance of the applicant’s role. We are unable to award this criteria.
For the first part at XXXX, the assessor has missed out the part where I stated that I built the entire application from scratch (opening paragraph, please focus on this), and provided github links to the code for the first version. The page views and unique visitors I provided was simply to show how far the product has reached. The github link I provided was to show my work (the entire application). This matches the “key engineer” example stated in OC3
For the second part at YYYY, the assessor has missed out the part where I stated that I was the lead product developer in soothsayer, with YYZZ admitting it in her reference letter (second paragraph, third line) where she stated that I led the development, building the product in python. This is an indication of the significance of my role. Being the lead developer in a product that has found product-market fit shows how impactful my work is. This matches the “key engineer” example stated in OC3
Please help me with your feedback on the appeal