Hi… I have been following many posts to compile my application for exceptional talent since 2-3 months. After much self -doubt and hesitation I have put together a list of evidences I would like to submit. I would greatly appreciate if someone like @pahuja or @Francisca_Chiedu or @alexnk or anyone with experience for that matter can take a look.
I have a decade-long experience in my field: 10 years in home country and 1 year in UK, and am currently on skilled worker visa.
DOCUMENTS
I have decided to split my evidences between MC:OC2:OC3 as 5:2:3, so a total of 10 documents.
LOR1: Professor and Chairperson of a national level center related to my field detailing my decade-long contributions through lectures, and research (all of which was not part of my 9-5 job) LOR2: Founder of product-led company I work at in UK detailing how my field has been added to the UK Risk Register and is in need of expert talent like myself LOR3: CEO of the product led company I work at in UK detailing my contribution as an employee to the product
MC1: Contract with current salary (almost triple of UK average wage) and letter of pay increase after 6 months of joining MC2: Invitation letters showing I have been requested to review MS thesis work as an external evaluator MC3: Screenshots and official emails showing I have been asked to provide expert review for national-level funding applications in my home country MC4: I was asked to review the manuscript for an IEEE conference local chapter. MC5: Invited lecturer for summer school activity related to my field, which was attended by more than 200 students.
OC2: I have been giving lectures related to my field at different schools and universities, as part of an international activity since 2016. Attached appreciation letter from the VC of one of the uni and the chairman of the national agency of my home country. But for this 80% evidences are older than 5 years. OC2: A list of all my publications (3x journals, 2x conferences) and a couple of seminars I attended.
OC3: Screenshots of my company gitlab where I am a principal engineer to show that I am a developer for multiple repos and screenshots of my annual and mid-year review OC3: My contribution to the main repo showing the amount of issues I raised and resolved and number of lines I changed via merge requests OC3: Reference letter from VP Engineering stating my contributions and impact on the company, and that I received a pay-rise within 6 months of joining (which is not a norm)
Please let me know if any other type of evidence should be added, the order should be re-arranged or if I even stand a chance?
MC: in 2,3,4 did you participate in the review? You should substantiate the invite with post review outcomes as well. You can also move one of these to OC2 to make 3 in OC2. 4-3-3 is a strong split usually.
MC5: was it related to digital technology? Do you have snapshots, attendee testimonials and appreciation letter from the organizers?
OC2: evidences from more than 5 years ago will not be accepted by TN. Better not to provide as they will flag it and reject. Pick the ones within 5 years. When you say “your field”, does it mean digital technology? Please attach screenshots of you speaking, attendee size (they need >100).
OC3 is about impact (quantified impact through your work) hence only participation in work is not enough but need to show quantified impact like repo stats, revenue increase, customer increase etc…seeing your evidence your OC3 might be weak with only what you have mentioned. Even in the last one just resolving tickets is not impact, it’s what you did. You need to show how it impacted in terms of quantified metrics.
@pahuja Thank you for your helpful reply. To answer your question about my field: yes its related to aerospace so part of digital tech. I have decided to re-arrange things a bit according to your advice, please let me know what you think:
MC1: Contract of salary + screenshots from Glassdoor to show it is in the higher bracket MC2: Invitation emails to review MS thesis for 2x students + final evaluation sheet showing my sign as External Examiner (along with sign of HoD) + email to invite me to be part of the pool of evaluators for the department MC3: Invitation email to review 3x manuscript for IEEE conference + evaluation sheet I emailed back (for one of them due to lack of space) + DOI of the same paper published on the IEEE platform MC4: Emails to review national level funding proposals. I mentioned that rest of the review process after I accepted was taken offline due to it being a govt. project, but my LOR from the chairperson of the same body acknowledges/validates my work/claim in this regard.
OC2_1: Invitation as invited speaker/panelist for space-related summer school in 2021 + official poster mentioning my name + official banner showing 120 participants in my talk + invitation as speaker for the same event for 2019 + images from official page showing me on stage and with all attendees. OC2_2: I show-cased that I have been giving lectures and seminars at different institutes since 2013 to help advance my field (this is not my main job). I attached different invitation letters and acknowledgements from 2021, 2019 and appreciation letter by the chairman of the government body in 2016 to show it was a continuous effort for a decade. OC2_3: List of my research and publications and excerpts from a recommendation letter I received back in 2023 by a renowned professor to showcase my technical capabilities and remarkable research
OC3_1: Self-authored text to show that the company I work for is a start-up and moving towards commercialization (with links to its product and website), my role in this transition as a developer as well as managing developers and clients + a screenshot of my mid-year review to corroborate that my role has been immensely helpful in transitioning towards commercialization + screenshot of pay-rise in 6 months OC3_2: my gitlab contribution towards converging the research and commercial codebase OC3_3: Letter from VP stating that development is part of my job, but I also interact with clients in technical discussions and manage/review others work, and that my efforts have brought the core-product closer to commercialization.
@Francisca_Chiedu and @alexnk I would love to hear your opinions as well… I am trying to finalize my application within next 2 weeks (big task I know!! but the longer I put it off, the less confident I become)
Hi @milo I think we are well awared of the TN guideline which is good for this stage of prepartion.
From you adjusted application by @pahuja suggestions which I also agreed, I think there are some room of improvement:
OC2-2: make sure to highlight those TN guideline in your details, for example: being structured programs, being the only or the senior speaker/mentor, and etc.
OC2-3: Do you have any sort of numbers to show your impact in advancement of the field? Books sold, downloads, traffics, etc? Otherwise, it may be just a list of regular activity.
OC3-1: Try to add any sorts of numbers in reports/presentation that you can include, for example: significant time reduced when you finished a certain project, major sale uplift for the project, and so on. TechNation loves these number and they help you to identify the business impact, rather than a list of activities you had done. It is also great that you have OC3-3, the letter, to support your self-authored evidence, but ensure they are included in the letters too.
OC3-2: Any numbers and the benchmark will definitely help.