Tech Nation rejected my application with mistakes that ignore their own guidelines, thoughts?
MC Salary: £2,222/month, 7-15x Nigeria’s £140-300 average (payslips shown). “Not high for industry” does MC need a UK standard?
LOR Recommendation Letters: One CEO, One CTO, spoke well, but tossed for CV gaps
MC and OC3 Referee: Product Owner, Lead Engineer, tossed for “manager” labels (they’re collaborators).
OC2 TikTok/Instagram: Over 6M+ views teaching tech (screenshots, analytics). “Self-authored” and “can’t validate links” meanwhile screenshots are shown for each video, screenshots of me answering questions. OC2 lists content creation.
OC3 Open-Source : 66+ repos (e.g., 30 stars). “Open source not related”, it’s literally in OC3’s text! “Starting or contributing to open source projects in a way that has been acknowledged by peers as advancing the field;”
I’m quite shocked, guidelines say one thing, they say another. Anyone else hit these errors? Opinions on their reasoning?
They didn’t speak of the other MC I gave which was a mapping engine project so I guess it went through, they said the portal project I gave was normal work of an employee, but it doesn’t seem so to me, I proved impact and use of high tech, basically I built an AI campaign generator, redesign of the portal which showed retention of users and shared campaign which improved collaboration in creating campaigns, to clarify 4 MC. So they complained the recommendation letters fall under a similar time frame, this was because they are from partners of my parent company, so they discounted the two recommendation letters, they added they don’t see the two companies in my CV or LinkedIn.
For manager labels, that’s the reference letter for MC, a partner of my parent company, they complained it’s from my manager but this project owner is not my manager but an external collaborator. Same with OC3, they complained it’s a manager but it’s not, it was an MLH programme so the managers were from MLH, not the companies partnering with MLH, so I got a reference from a lead engineer in the project, they complained of the timeframe being only 4 months, but this engineer has known me since 2022 and spoke so well of me. In total, 4 MC, 3 OC3, 3 OC2.
You need to address every point raised in the appeal and route them to parts of your original application that answers their questions. MC needs to show a higher scale and impact to the sector than the company itself. It is the toughest criteria to clear and every evidence used under MC must point to how it has impacted the sector.
Your application shows strong technical contributions but needs better alignment with Tech Nation’s evaluation patterns. The salary evidence requires clearer context - speaking to your contributions to the projects in addition to a high salary. For recommendation letters, seek external validators like hackathon organizers or open-source maintainers who can vouch for your independent work.
The open-source contributions should be reframed to show peer acknowledgment - include GitHub issue discussions where others adopted your solutions or list organizations using your projects. For the AI portal work, emphasize what made it exceptional beyond typical employee tasks, like developing novel algorithms or creating reusable frameworks that went beyond company requirements.
Your social media evidence needs third-party validation - explicitly write down the acknowledgement by Adobe with screenshots or have a reputable tech publication cite your TikTok tutorials. For hackathons, highlight how the judging criteria align with OC2’s “advancing the field” requirement through the competition’s official rubrics.
Reorganize your documents using Tech Nation’s exact criterion phrases as section headers, with bullet points mapping each evidence piece to specific guideline excerpts. This forces evaluators to engage with your alignment claims rather than making subjective judgments.
The feedback says the companies your referees work for are not on your CV. I think you didn’t follow the guide in putting your application together. Social media evidence are not sufficient or standalone evidence.
@pahuja@Francisca_Chiedu@Akash_Joshi Thank you all for your feedback.
I got “We have taken these into consideration when reviewing the application.” for the LORs and MCs.
They focused on OC2 and OC3 “The applicant reiterates their work on tiktok and why they believe it is relevant. They claim it has mentoring value, but mentoring must meet very specific guidelines in order to be eligible. This is not a structured programme with selection criteria.
We disagree with the applicant’s own assessment of their evidence and agree with the original assessor.”
And “With regard to optional criteria 3 the applicant believes the timeline to be misinterpreted and that the work they have described is not basic.
They go over their open source contributions where they feel they have been overlooked and why they believe they are relevant to this criteria.
The reason that the original assessor will have dismissed it as not relevant to the criteria is that work done must be as an employee of a product led digital technology company. Many companies build open source products and in that case it would be relevant. Open source projects by themselves are relevant to optional criteria 2 as work outside of employment.”
I believe my case will show others how to structure their applications properly.
I will submit another application soon and any further feedback will still be appreciated.
Thank you all!!
Thanks for sharing, Jande!
So sorry about the rejection…wishing you good luck with the next one!!!
@pahuja@Francisca_Chiedu please can you clarify the OC2 requirement regarding mentorship activities for Exceptional Promise candidates? Given that they are expected to have less than five years of experience, why must their mentorship activities be part of structured programs?
This expectation seems unrealistic, as most recognized mentorship programs typically select individuals with 5 to 10+ years of experience.
Thank you @Francisca_Chiedu@pahuja!
Beyond my employment, I actively mentor aspiring and intermediate Product Managers and provide both paid and pro-bono product advisory services to startup founders. Currently, I’m mentoring 4 mentees and advising 4 startups (2 paid, 2 pro-bono). Additionally, I’ve provided career guidance to 10+ individuals pursuing a career in Product Management.
So far, I’ve gathered testimonials from 2 mentees and 1 pro-bono startup. Would these be sufficient as supporting evidence for OC2?
To clarify, I offer the programme in a structured and formal manner under an official name, TalCrest. Kindly review:
Selection Process & Structure
Application & Screening: Mentees apply via a Pre-evaluation Questionnaire, where I assess their current skill level, which gives me insights into their background, goals, and areas of interest.
Curriculum: The program follows a structured curriculum covering product conceptualisation, execution strategies, and stakeholder management, with tailored resources such as customer journey templates, PRDs, and assumption mapping frameworks.
Mentorship Approach:
One-on-one sessions to provide tailored guidance.
Masterclasses and structured feedback on real-world product challenges.
Hands-on exercises for practical application of product principles.
