Stage 1 Endorsement not received. Kindly please help review

Hello everyone!

I tried applying for Exceptional Talent endorsement in August and got a rejection, for the statistics my case was edited 6 times and it took 6 weeks and a day to receive an answer. So, it correlates with common opinion that rejections take more time. Below I will present all of my evidence and would be really grateful for your advice on how to appeal for a review with my strongest arguments.

I applied as a Product manager in EdTech, I am also the Head of Leaning Center in an international bank. I have been working in this organization for almost 8 years thus my mandatory evidence and OE contribution are connected with this workplace and are internal projects.

Mandatory Evidence

  1.   I presented 3 articles that were published on my EdTech projects. The articles were copyrighted after interviews with me and I shared tips and tricks on the usage of the same solutions in other companies in them. In evidence I showed links to the website and telegram channel reposts with number of views.
    
  2.   High Salary evidence. Screenshots from glassdoor that prove that I am a top paid specialist in the field. Scans of my bonus payments and Income statements from my company.
    
  3.   I receive a national award in the E-learning contest (top 15-best e-courses), presented a photo of myself at the award, a scan of the certificate, screenshots from the course.
    
  4.   2 speaking engagements on different EdTech projects, for the first one I presented a youtube video link, for the other one a badge and a photo of myself at the timetable stand. I described how these conferences are very important for the EdTech industry, number of visitors overall with links to the official sites. I also described briefly projects that I presented (a gamified learning portal that helped to boost business numbers (I included numbers) and a major redesign project to the main learning portal that I manage, I included description of the new features and how they improved employee engagement)
    

Optional Evidence Recognition beyond occupation that contributes to the advancement of the field

  1.   My first evidence in connected with my ongoing PhD studies which helped my develop political vocabulary dictionary which I turned into several E-learning projects ā€“ Political vocabulary e-course and learning portal.
    

I included link to my quizlet course with core political vocabulary and many interactive exercises which has 16 students as of now and screenshots.

I also developed a site with interactive graphs that show how words are connected in texts and other engaging data. I also described how it can be used for educational purposes. As evidence I included link to the site, screenshots from it, and number of users from google analytics (over 500).

  1.   I am a mentor in Women in Tech community. I started my mentoring journey in February 2022.
    

I included official certificate of WiT, link to the site with my name and screenshot form it with my photo.

I also stated that it is now an all year round program and included link to the site with vacant timeslots to book my free session.

Optional Evidence Significant contribution to the field as an employee

  1.   I presented project ā€œMicrolearning for sales managersā€. This is a digital learning solution that was introduced to close the skill gap for sales managers. With this evidence I wanted to show my expertise and contribution to my company in designing quality e-learning products. I described importance of the project, how I managed it, technical features, included screenshots from one of the 18 courses that were created and business results that were achieved.  
    
  2.   I presented project ā€œPersonnel Portal ā€“ Covid-19 responseā€. This is a project that introduced several changes to the main learning platform that I am responsible of. I similarly described my role, what changes were presented to the portal, new features were introduced, screenshots from the portal, and positive numbers were presented ā€“ increase in learning hours and social learning elements usage.
    
  3.   Recommendation Letter from the top manager of my current company who worked with me on the major redesign Agile project to the main learning portal where he described my role, technical features introduced in details, and business and learning results achieved including numbers. He also spoke on the Covid response project and that I was a winner at a professional award inside our company personally and won best digital project of the company with my team. He also mentioned that I am a mentor inside our company.  
    
  4.   Recommendation letter from my previous manager who now works in another company.
    

She elaborated more on my career journey inside my organization, how I have been growing professionally and as a manager through many years. She also covered that I basically started eLearning in the company, how I developed the system of over 300 courses and saved this much time on its actualization and some of my other wins. She explained how company saved money by integrating blended learning and how we increased engagement in numbers. She described in detail a gamified learning portal I introduced that helped sales managers achieve better results and included many numbers achieved. She also mentioned that as a team we won an in-company award and my contribution into this win. And described my evolution from e-learning developer into manager.

Recommendation Letters

  1.   CEO and Founder EdTech company 1. This letter covered our mutual eLearning project for our clients and how this project helped save this much money on travel expenses and some other numbers.
    
  2.   Founder of EdTech Company 2. This letter described among other things another mutual project, my contribution, leadership style and what learning results we achieved.
    
  3.   Founder and CEO of the top rated in our country EdTech. This letter described my contribution to the project about major reconstruction of our internal portal, my role, solutions that I suggested and numbers of increased engagement among employees.
    

So overall, all of my contribution evidences were supported by several recommendation letters that gave more details on my contribution and spoke instead of me.

Results.

I received yes for the Mandatory criteria and a no for both optional evidence with the comments that I meet mandatory criteria but fail both optional.

Optional 2 criteria: not enough detail listing her work in creating the political vocabulary online course on Quizlet. To prove that her work is beyond the applicantā€™s occupation, we need more metrics beyond the 16 students enrolled in the course. It also shows only her contribution in February and March this year on the online link.

The proof submitted on her mentoring requires further detail on the significance of being selected to mentor as recognition for what they have achieved in the industry. We also require more detail on the impact of power talent mentoring as it seems like the opportunity is only to mentor 1-2 people.

Optional 3 criteria require evidence demonstrating they have made significant technical, commercial or entrepreneurial contributions to the field as a founder, senior executive, board member or employee of a product-led digital technology company.

There is not enough evidence as to how this has contributed to the field. There is no evidence on how these techniques have been adopted universal or become industry standards.

My opinion on what I can use for a review.

  1.   Outside occupation. 
    

Correct me if I am wrong but I have not seen that there are any instructions in tech nation guide on the amount of mentees that were successfully mentored. Women in Tech is an ongoing program since February first I for sure took 2 mentees and spent over 12 hours working with them, after that they changed protocol and allowed working with any amount of mentees and I took 5 more women interested specifically in EdTech. I am a mentor in my own organization and have been for a while which is proved by my letters but that does not count.

My short course on vocabulary was created at the beginning of this year, but the materials have been developed for 5 years of my PhD studies and could not been collected any sooner. The course has 16 people enrolled, by the system does not show how many were just looking and learning words (there is no need to enroll to see materials).

They have not taken into consideration the site with word graphs and word lists and other data with over 500 views and my explanation on how it could be used as a learning portal.

  1.   Contribution. 
    

Is it stated in TN that contribution criteria should have impact on the industry? I was under impression that it should have contribution on your company business results.

Project Gamified learning platform described in RL of my previous manager was used at the conference covered in mandatory criteria (it could be seen by some reoccurring numbers and name of it).

Covid Project was covered in the article from Mandatory criteria.

And overall I showed that I have 3 articles and 2 speaking engagements in mandatory criteria with different EdTech projects where I share my expertise and give advice on how to implement solutions inhouse.

RL#3 says that some of my solutions were included into LMS system ad are now used in the country by everyone who has this LMS.

So these are my thoughts, they are not perfectly structured yet. I would really appreciate your input into my case.

2 Likes

Mine took 6 weeks and I was endorsed. Itā€™s not about the number of days to assess your documents.
You need to review their feedback before reapplying.

2 Likes

How long ago was this pls
And you got endorsed without need for appeal, right?

Moreso, do you remember the number of edits you got during the 6 weeks

1 Like

I got my endorsement on Aug 11, 2022. Submitted 30th June 2022.
Got endorsed without appeal
No edit was done.

2 Likes

Statistically more rejections happen after 4 weeks of waiting.

I am posting this information to discuss before applying for review.

Atimes the feedbacks make me think some assessors reject based on the gray areas of the guide

  • For instance on the recency of your evidences (February and March), even though it is 5 months to your application, Iā€™m not sure the guide specify the minimum gap for evidence recency.

  • Is there any pointer in your evidence that means ā€˜voluntaryā€™ or to show that the contribution is beyond your occupation. For instance in the certificate issued to you, or on the organisation website

  • Or perhaps you explain the nature of your contributions for better understanding

You could refer to pointers in the evidence that explains this, and use that opportunity to give more explanation, plus a very good reason why the mentees are few (maybe for efficiency and resources available)

I am a bit confused here though. My understanding of the guide regarding OC3 was that itā€™s not limited to the industry, it could be to the employer.

Exactly my view too, but I think their expectations for someone applying for Talent is higher than from Promise.

And you need to be careful in defending this point as they can say your mentorship timing is too recent (done for the purpose of the TN application) Maybe you can refer to the within organisation mentorship (but then they may say that is expected of you)

In my opinion, I think your case will be a bit tricky because you applied for talent (they obviously expected more from you)

Generally I think your some of your assessorā€™s reasons are debatable (if we go by TN guide)

In the end, the choice of words in your appeal will go along way (may be you seek help of a lawyer friend to help interpret the TN official guide in your favour to better present your appeal)

1 Like

Thank you so much for such a detailed opinion.

I also feel that they expected more, but kinda also I am sure that I was very detailed about my contribution to the company as I specifically provided many numbers on different projects.

As for my outside occupation it is based on my unfinished PhD (over 5 years) and all EdTech products I produced are absolutely non work related.

@Svetlana, Are you ok sharing the feedback as a single text or document (blurring out any personal info). Perhaps I maybe able to share a few thoughts.

1 Like

Exactly!

@Svetlana i find it a bit confusing, how you shared the feedback. can you provide Tech Nation feedback so we clearly identify their points.

1 Like

@Maya @ewealth

The applicant has applied for a global talent visa to work in EdTech as a Product Manager in the
Exceptional Talent category.
The applicant meets the mandatory criteria of being recognised as a leading talent in the digital
technology sector through her work in edTech and e-learning.

Optional 2 criteria require proof of recognition for work beyond the applicantā€™s occupation that
contributes to the advancement of the field. There is not enough detail listing her work in creating the
political vocabulary online course on Quizlet. To prove that her work is beyond the applicantā€™s
occupation, we need more metrics beyond the 16 students enrolled in the course. It also shows only her
contribution in February and March this year on the online link. There needs to be more detail submitted
on deep engagement or longer-term engagement for it to be considered as work beyond the applicantā€™s
occupation that has contributed to the advancement of the field. The proof submitted on her mentoring
requires further detail on the significance of being selected to mentor as recognition for what they have
achieved in the industry. We also require more detail on the impact of power talent mentoring as it
seems like the opportunity is only to mentor 1-2 people. Evidence in this category needs to demonstrate
a more profound impact within the industry. Therefore, Optional Criteria two hasnā€™t been met.

Optional 3 criteria require evidence demonstrating they have made significant technical, commercial or
entrepreneurial contributions to the field as a founder, senior executive, board member or employee of a
product-led digital technology company. Whilst it is clear the contribution that the applicant has made to
the Company, there is not enough evidence as to how this has contributed to the field. There is no doubt
that a N% reduction in travel expenses and a N% reduction in overdue e-courses are significant - but
there is no evidence on how these techniques have been adopted universal or become industry
standards. If the applicant were to apply again for industry awards, media coverage or more detail on
speaking engagements within the last five years would further strengthen this. Currently, Optional 3
criteria havenā€™t been met.
Despite the applicant meeting the Mandatory criteria, they havenā€™t met the Optional 2 and 3 categories.
Therefore, the applicant canā€™t be endorsed under this visa category at this time.

@Maya @ewealth
I am not sure if I can share the whole text, will probably delete it later.
Thank you so much for your opinions! Most grateful!

This feedback requires one to reflect on what will be an appropriate responseā€¦ let me think throughā€¦

1 Like

in principle, you can either:

(1) appeal by providing clarity on how the evidences you provided meet optional criteria 1 and 2 or
(2) Where you are of the opinion your evidence wasnā€™t strong enough then you can reapply focusing on their feedbackā€¦

Which is your preference ?

I will apply for review anyways and I feel that I am strong enough :slight_smile:

1 Like

ok, i will share my opinion along the line of your preferenceā€¦

1 Like

The feedback for OC3 I find particularly surprising. I was under a similar impression that significant commercial impact was sufficient, and not impact on the broader field.

Has anyone else received similar feedback? Or had success when submitting evidence related to impact within the company?

3 Likes

It seems theyā€™ve made this harder lol. But again, he applied for the exceptional talent category. The expectations from the assessors would be burj Khalifa high!

2 Likes

Hi @Svetlana i am sorry for my late response i was honestly all over the place . Your application wouldā€™ve went through on any other day had it been for Exceptional promise imo . this is not to take away from your efforts but it just seems that the requirements for **Exceptional Talent ** are a little bit strenuous .

Itā€™s still worthy of a review though , the technation guide doesnā€™t quantify the length at which mentorship registers , nor does it quantify the amount of mentees are considered per a certain category of application . that will definitely swing in your favour . otherwise i donā€™t how much more concrete your application couldā€™ve been , unless thereā€™s another guide they use thatā€™s not available to us.

Best of Luck .

1 Like

Applying for Exceptional talent is not a problem, as many applied for talent and they got endorsed for promise and vice versa.

In the Guide it is mentioned the following:

2 Likes

Thanks for your response!

I frankly do not feel that I am qualified for promise, too many years of many successful projects and products developed. And I passed mandatory criteria which means I am recognized as a leading talent.

I feel that I should have left some speaking engagements for optional criteria instead of leaving them in the mandatory category. As they say, show us you are a winner, a speaker , a published specialist, and I am, only it was all left in mandatory criteria.

I will apply for a review soon and will post results here.

2 Likes