Request for Application Review: Seeking Your Valuable Input After a Previous Rejection

Stage 1
1

Hello everyone,

I am reapplying for the Exceptional Promise endorsement after my initial application in April. I would greatly appreciate your assistance in reviewing my application before submission.
In my initial application, I successfully met one out of the three criteria. However, the reviewer’s feedback indicated that I did not provide enough evidence.

This was my last feedback:

Screenshot 2023-09-17 at 19.50.19
Screenshot 2023-09-17 at 19.50.191406×914 135 KB

My new application documents

GENERAL DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS:

  • Personal statement: I discussed my deliberate choice to pursue a career in technology, emphasizing my journey into the field of blockchain engineering. I elaborated on the challenges I encountered while acquiring advanced technical skills, as well as my motivation for participating in public speaking events related to blockchain technology. I also outlined the increasing number of job offers I have received from recruiters and articulated my potential contributions to the UK economy.

  • Professional resume: Professional Resume Highlighting My Blockchain and Software Experience

  • Letters of recommendation: Three-Page Detailed Letters of Recommendation Describing My Work and Its Impact, Providing Comprehensive Detail to Showcase Exceptional Performance.

MANDATORY CRITERIA:

  1. Reference letter from a Blockchain Community for a workshop I was the instructor for a niche blockchain technical topic: This letter includes appended screenshots showcasing positive attendee feedback comments, the event banner, and viewer metrics.
  2. Google IO Public Speaking Reference on Blockchain: This comprehensive letter from Google IO highlights the impact, target audience, and underscores my expertise on the subject. It is supplemented with a screenshot of the invitation email, an image of me at the event, attendee comments, and a photograph of the engaged audience.
  3. Event Organizer Reference (one of Southern Nigeria’s Largest Tech Talk Event): The reference details the impact of my speech, the reasons for selecting me as a speaker, and the event’s significance with over 24000 registrants. This includes a screenshot of me on stage, the captivated audience, and the event banner.
  4. Current Employment Salary and Regimentation Comparative Analysis: A comparative report detailing my current employment’s salary structure and regimentation in contrast to the average salary in my country.

OPTIONAL CRITERIA 2:

  1. Blockchain Contribution Document: A self-authored document cataloging my contributions to two blockchain networks, complemented by screenshots of my GitHub commits and references pertaining to bounties received for blockchain value. (Previously met criteria in last application)
  2. Open Source Project Organisations Reference Letter (Over 1300 Stars): This letter is from the Media Manager at one of the blockchain project, attesting to my active participation in open source hackathons.
  3. Hackathon Platform Acknowledgement Letter: This letter is from the projects platform, formally acknowledging my substantial contributions in various hackathon projects.
    Optional Criteria 3:
  4. CTO’s Reference from AI Product-Led Startup: A letter detailing my pioneering contributions at an AI product-led startup, including their successful fundraising of $3 million and international media recognition. This is accompanied by screenshots of media mentions and a summary of GitHub commits.
  5. Technical Lead’s Reference (Current Company, Netherlands Based): This letter from my technical lead affirms my contributions to a unique blockchain wallet developed by the company. It also highlights my role in their flagship product, complemented by screenshots of media mentions from European news sites, a summary of my GitHub commits in project, and a company LinkedIn appreciation post that tagged me, regarding the flagship product release.
  6. Media Pages Compilation: A compilation of screenshots showcasing my commits at my current company, supplemented by images of hand-drawn architectural diagrams on Miro whiteboard, digital versions of the architectural diagrams, and database ERDs - all designed by me. Additionally, a screenshot of media mentions in news outlets is included.

Please your critical review is needed .
Note: The two talks was held earlier last month.
@Francisca_Chiedu @Chaitanya_Bapat @ask4jubad

2

@Francisca_Chiedu Please can you help me review?

3

@Francisca_Chiedu Could someone please share suggestions? I’ve seen how you’ve helped many people in the past, so I’m looking forward to your input on this as well. Thanks a lot!

4

@alexnk Please can you help review.

5

Why they said you select OC 1 and OC2? But you said you selected OC 2 and OC 3?

6

The first thing here is that you have relisted your criteria for OC2 which was already awarded. Which other criteria will you be applying for? OC 1 again? For your mandatory criteria, three out of the four documents listed are reference letters and other evidence of public speaking aside from your salary analysis. You should at least have one other piece of evidence describing the impact of your work inside your current or previous employer’s product-led company. Have there been any specific changes to the mandatory recommendation letters you are using this time around from the last one?

7

I think as for giving speak, I heard a structure from the successful applicant: 3- stage structure.

  1. Letter from organization
  2. Facts that the speech happened (Poster, Links, No. of views)
  3. Letter from Audience. How the speech has impacted them (The example is the audience said the speaker’s talk encouraged them to enter the field).
1 Like
8

Oops! bullet point 8,9 and 10 are the evidences for OC3 .

9

That’s was an error on my part in my first application(rejected).
On my new application, I intend to select OC2 and OC3.

10

Thanks for getting back to me. This time around, I’m going for OC2 and OC3. I realize in my last, the LORs was pretty brief and didn’t really dive into the details of my work and what I’ve accomplished. But in my new application, It covered all that and more.

11

How recent are your speaking event? Note that evidence that are round the timing of your application may not be considered. For the mandatory criteria I think using three similar evidence of evidence may not be necessary. You can use two high profile event. Do you have any media mention regarding the events or your work? Aside the speaking event you can get merge two or three references letter from industry experts l, a wider network who know your work and talk about your significant contribution to the Blockchain community or a product or team you lead.

For OC2, is evidence 5 &6 related? Avoid repeating same instance if an evidence. If 5 and 6 are related to same project I would merged it as one, if the projects are different then it is fine as it is. What was your contribution to the Hackathon, where you a judge or participant?

For evidence 8, where you instrumental to the funding raised, if so the letter show explicitly state how you contributed. Where you mention in the media mention, if not I don’t see the point adding it. I think your commits should be separated from the letter it should be a stand alone evidence.

12

Hello,
I addition to what everyone has said; Can you pls add the CVs of your referees, hopefully this time, they’ll be people outside your organization. The fear is usually that if you add their CVs, to show they’re also recognized digital tech leaders, the section will exceed the mandatory 3 pages., but experience has shown they don’t count the CV pages. So try that too.
Best of luck.

1 Like
13

Thanks, @Francisca_Chiedu , for your feedback. The Google IO event took place last month, while the other event happened in September of last year.

Regarding your suggestions about additional evidence, would it be more appropriate to use one of the letters of reference from OC2 or OC3 to address the mandatory criteria?

14

I am not sure what you mean but you can’t repeat evidence.