Reasons why your CDR got Rejected

This is the most common mistake writers usually make. I know most of us tend to follow some certain samples online to refer in order to organize the structure of our own CDR. Nevertheless, Engineers Australia uses different software to detect plagiarized content. Thus, even you performed this action unintentionally, your report would finally be considered as plagiarism.

We have seen many reports being treated as plagiarism in which the writers accidentally commit the offense. One of the reasons is due to the fact that they want to explain the calculation and engineering definition of the career episode in the most understandable way. Since engineering calculation is too specific with different variables explanation and engineering definition is full of complicated jargon in most of the sources, it is quite hard to rewrite and consolidate information. That is the reason why people copy directly from Internet the formula or the variables explanation notes without rephrase it.
If you could not write any formula or variable explanation in your own word due to the above reason, you must distinguish other peoples’ work from your own by using properly in-text citations and references list. Failing to acknowledge sources you have used in writing each career episode would be considered as plagiarism and may result in serious consequences including but not limited to:

1) Immediate rejection of the application along with the imposition of a 12, 24 or 36-month ban.
2) Mandatory reporting of the applicant’s details to the Department of Home Affairs.

A lot of people make this mistake while writing Career Episodes. They divided the same project into two parts which are identical to each other in terms of problem and results. They then include each part in each Career Episode. It is the requirement of Engineers Australia that you write different project in each Career Episode. There are many options for you to choose, but not limited to the following:
+ a project you have worked on or are currently working on.
+ an engineering task undertaken as part of your educational program.
+ a specific position that you occupied or currently occupy (special conditions applied).
+ a particular engineering problem that you were required to solve.

The next common mistake is to describe how your group or team worked on the project, solved the problem, and completed the projects, but not clearly emphasing your personal role and contributions to each task.
CDR is written as a technical story in which you are the narrator. This was designed to assess your personal skill, not your teamwork. It assesses what you did in that project, describe how you did it and act as evidence of your communication skills to the assessor, how you worked with the team, your decision-making skills, your leadership, etc.

When you present your competency demonstration report to EA, you are submitting an official document that is meant to be written by a professional. Thus, you must pay attention to its formatting, cohesiveness, and the coherence in your CEs. For example, if you write problem A in the problem statement, you would have to explain how you utilize your engineering knowledge, your calculation and your creativity to solve problem A, not to solve problem B and C…. Otherwise, your writing would be coarse, full of errors, and the assessor might be distracted from what you really want to explain.

Engineers have the tendency to ignore this part. You have to ensure that there are no spelling and grammar errors, formatting issues, and your writing are coherent and cohesive. You are submitting your report as a professional so it should be demonstrated as a professional piece of writing. Small mistakes would have great consequences on your assessment.

If you are unable to demonstrate your competencies properly, assessor may ask you to re-do it but if you fail to demonstrate your skill and ability to think like an engineer, most likely you will get rejected.

There are many standards an engineer has to follow while performing a project. If they mistakenly choose a non-proper standard to apply in their project while writing a career episode, most likely their report will be rejected.
For example, a mechanical engineer who writes his career episode on pressure vessel design and inspection that was carried out in 2007 but utilize a standard of ASME code section VIII 2004, which is out – dated. This immediately tells EA that there are some fraudulent or misconduct activities on the document you provide. Remember that assessor might not be a specialist in your engineering field but they are able to check whether the standard is applicable at the time you performed the project.