Career Episodes are the most assessable part of your Engineers Australia CDR because they show how you applied engineering knowledge and skills in real work or academic projects—not just what the project was. Each episode must focus on a different period/aspect and clearly explain your personal role.
A strong Career Episode is not a project summary. It’s a narrative of your engineering decisions—analysis, design, testing, troubleshooting, constraints, tools, standards, and outcomes—written so the assessor can identify your contribution (what I did, not what “we” did).
CTA
Need help polishing your Career Episode writing? Upload your draft for a structured review.
Required Career Episode structure (MSA format)
Engineers Australia recommends a structured format with word guidance and section requirements.
1) Introduction (~150 words): where / when / what
Include:
- dates + duration (chronology)
- location
- organisation name
Mini example (style):
“I completed this project between March 2023 and July 2023 in Kathmandu, Nepal, at ABC Consulting, where I worked as a Junior Mechanical Engineer on HVAC design for a mid-rise commercial building.”
2) Background (200–500 words): project context + your position
Include:
- nature + objectives of the project
- your work area
- organisational chart highlighting your position
- your duties
Mini example (what to cover):
- “Project objective: reduce peak cooling load and meet indoor air quality targets.”
- “My position: design engineer reporting to the MEP lead; coordinated with architect and electrical team.”
3) Personal Engineering Activity (600–1500 words): what you did + how you did it
This is the key assessable component. You should describe:
- what you personally did and how
- technical difficulties and how you solved them
- strategies/design work you devised
- how you worked with other team members (without turning it into “we did everything”)
What assessors look for here (practical checklist):
- Inputs/constraints you worked under (codes, standards, client requirements, budget, time, site limits)
- Your calculations/analysis (assumptions, method choice, validation)
- Tools you used (software, spreadsheets, test equipment) and why
- Decisions you made (selection, trade-offs, checks, risk controls)
- Outcomes (performance, compliance, cost/time impact)
4) Summary (50–150 words): outcomes + your contribution
Summarise:
- how the project performed against goals
- how your role contributed
Mini example:
“I delivered a compliant HVAC design by completing load calculations, selecting equipment, and verifying duct sizing against pressure-loss limits. My design reduced estimated peak load by 8% through revised zoning and heat-gain controls.”
Recommended overall length: 1000–2500 words per Career Episode.
Non-negotiable rules assessors check
These are the “compliance basics” that commonly trigger avoidable problems:
- Written in English and in your own words (it’s also evidence of communication skills).
- First-person singular (“I…”) and clearly personal (not “we…” or “I was involved in…”).
- Paragraph numbering is required so your Summary Statement can reference evidence (e.g., 1.1, 1.2… / 2.1… / 3.1…).
- Essay format — Career Episodes must be in essay form and not formatted into a table.
- Distinct focus per episode (different period/aspect; not three versions of the same story).
Numbering example (simple and MSA-friendly):
- Career Episode 1: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3…
- Career Episode 2: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3…
- Career Episode 3: 3.1, 3.2, 3.3…
Common mistakes (and how to fix them)
Mistake 1: “We designed…” (team narrative hides your role)
Fix: Rewrite to show your decisions and actions:
- “I calculated…”
- “I selected…”
- “I verified…”
- “I compared options and justified…”
Before: “We completed the design and ensured compliance.”
After: “I sized the primary components using XYZ method, checked compliance against ___ standard, and documented the design changes after resolving ___ constraint.”
Mistake 2: Too much theory, not enough project-specific evidence
Fix: Replace textbook content with your inputs → method → decision → result:
- inputs (loads, requirements, parameters)
- constraints (standards, site limits, budget/time)
- method (why this method/software)
- outcome (what changed, what improved, what you delivered)
Mistake 3: No paragraph numbers (mapping becomes painful later)
Fix: Number as you draft—don’t “add it later.” Your Summary Statement depends on paragraph numbers being accurate.
Mistake 4: “I was involved in…” (sounds passive and weak)
Fix: Convert passive phrasing into accountable engineering actions:
- “I investigated the root cause by…”
- “I tested/validated by…”
- “I redesigned/modified because…”
Professional preparation approach (compliance-safe)
A strong, compliance-safe approach looks like this:
- Choose the right scope (one clear project or problem per episode; different aspect each time).
- Plan evidence by paragraph (decide where you’ll show analysis/design/testing/problem-solving).
- Draft in first-person with measurable engineering actions.
- Verify technical consistency (methods, units, assumptions, standards referenced).
- Do a compliance review before mapping (structure, numbering, evidence density, clarity).