Are you struggling when writing Career Episodes? If you are not aware regarding how one can prepare Career Episodes, don’t stress, we have the situation under control for you so you will be able to create your Career Episodes easily. With regards to the preparation of Career Episodes, it is significant that one has a total understanding of the diverse format and outstanding writing skills which can permit you to submit it with flawlessness. We recommend you to go through an ultimate guide to write a Career Episode before starting to write it.
Preparation of Career Episode is one of the most urgent strides for composing a fruitful CDR (Competency Demonstration Report). An engineer gets an opportunity to showcase that he/she is capable of meeting the criteria and expectation of Engineers Australia for Migration Skills Assessment through writing perfect Career Episodes. You are required to follow guidelines on Migration Skills Assessment booklet in order prepare a perfect career episode. To compose a Career Episode report, one needs to pick a specific occurrence or subject related to their academic and professional life and expound it to show how the engineer utilized explicit capabilities to deal with that specific project.
Preparation of Career Episodes for Engineers Australia requires complete command over your language skills as well as good grasp over engineering skills and knowledge. Preparing a compelling CDR is directly related to one’s experiences as an engineer.
Common Mistakes in CE Preparation and how to avoid them
Crafting a Career Episode is a sensitive procedure that requires cautious and planned work. The author must consider different factors, and consolidate a rich set of components so as to meet the necessities of a successful assessment. First and foremost thing that the author needs to follow is to follow the format of CE. Here are the most widely common mistakes done by the individuals who have little idea of writing Career Episodes:
Excessively long
You need to incorporate everything that was done in a project, and you need to describe all work in detail that will be appreciated. The maximum limit of word in a career episode is 2500, thus you have to regard this limit and keep the length of your CE within it. Assessors don’t have time to read unnecessary details.
Excessively non-specific
Saying “I structured a circuit board” is a non-specific statement that doesn’t appropriately reflect what you did. Encompassing details such as what design software tool you utilized, what revisions were required, what parts did the circuit board comprised of, and whether you needed to work together with somebody from your group to finish the design, will make things progressively suitable.
Excessively technical
One of the most common errors is for CEs to be broadly technical, leaving little margin for including different components, for example, “reporting”, “communication”, “cost-related decisions”, “conducting meetings”, and “presentation of pioneering processes”. Your career episode must include all the components rather than completely dedicating it to the technical description of the work done.
Not focused on the candidate’s work
The career episode must focus on the work done by the candidate, and not by the group or organization that the candidate was part of. This implies that, it is important to utilize active voice such as “I did”, “I checked”, “I estimated”, and “I tested”. You are not allowed to present the work done with “we structured”, “we administered”, and “we stimulated”. Even you have performed a group task, the assessors want to see what you did, so in any event, while presenting something that was finished by a group you ought to explicitly clarify what actually your commitment and participation was.
Untruthful
At last, numerous candidates feel that they have to include components that are fictional so as to make their career episode sufficiently convincing. That is a common mistake as assessors are sufficiently experienced to have the capability to identify unconfirmed claims that appear to be outside the context. Rather, attempt to cover a component with genuineness regardless of whether that means that it will be weakly or marginally covered.