CDRReport

CDR Review

CDR Review service is one of the CDRReport’s most popular CDR Services in demand. Once you are done with your CDR writing, have prepared the Continuing Professional Documents (CPD) list, written all the three Career Episodes, and have prepared a Summary Statement – and have edited it, proofread it, and have checked it for plagiarism, you might feel all set to submit your Competency Demonstration Report to the Engineers Australia (EA) for assessment. Unfortunately, despite your best efforts, the CDR assessment outcomes may not turn out to be what you had been hoping for.

How can CDR Review Australia help me?

EA might reject a CDR, ask you to re-submit it, or assess you for a lesser category than you had been aiming for – based on certain technicalities that you didn’t even know about. Many engineers aiming for Visa 189 as Professional Engineers have been disappointed because their CDR assessment outcome pegged them as ‘Engineering Technologist’ or ‘Engineering Associate’ even when they do hold the four-year Bachelor degree in Engineering. Being assessed as a different category may mean that you might not make it into the SOL list anymore and many not be invited to immigration interview at all, or if you do make it to Australia, you might not be eligible for certain jobs you are otherwise qualified for.

Some of the main reasons why CDR gets rejected include:

  • Use of excessive technical details such as tables, calculations, photos and diagrams.
  • Writing CE content in the form of bullet points instead of paragraphs.
  • Copying and pasting anything in your project, especially academic and work-related details.
  • Describe the same project in two Career Episodes – even if you mention different aspects or details of the project.
  • Focus on a group activity or team work without much mention about what role you specifically played in the project. If you do not talk about your duties and responsibilities and how you executed them, how will EA assess your capabilities?
  • Though EA allows you to write your career episodes in different languages, if you include the translations with your CDR report. Yet, it is advisable to write career episodes in Australian English only. CDR report that is not formatted properly may also lead a negative impression on assessors.
  • Not including problem statements, steps and technologies you used to solve the problems, details about design activities you were part of, and measures you took for environmental and personnel safety.
  • Skipping details like company profile and the project’s objectives, location and duration in your CDR report is also a serious mistake many engineers make.

In the CDR review, we pay attention to all these details and more, and provide a detailed report on what changes your CDR needs to win a favorable assessment.

How would you review my CDR?

CDRReport’s team of EA experts include Professional Engineers and Technical Writers have years of experience in preparing winning CDRs for engineers applying for Australian Skilled Immigration Visa. They know the nuances which can change your CDR outcomes dramatically. Unlike CDR Editing and Proofreading services which check for spelling and grammar mistakes in a CDR and suggests you how to structure your content better or CDR Plagiarism Checking and Removal services that concerns itself only with copied material, CDR Review feedback report you receive will include both the services mentioned above as well as point out the technical aspects and missing elements which might influence EA assessment.

Here are some of the CDR review cases we have handled:

  • I am a Mechanical Engineer with more than 5 years of experience as a Sr. Product Engineer. I applied as a Professional Engineer to the EA. Now, I have received comments from them which state that “you are lacking to carry the professional engineering wide-ranging responsibilities…Based on your career episodes’ summary, the best qualification outcome is the Mechanical Engineering Associate.”

In this case, our client was worried because Engineering Associate was not on SOL list and he was worried that he might not be eligible for Visa 189. We reviewed his CDR and assisted him in writing his career episodes according to the Mechanical Engineer job description – and helped him clear the CDR assessment successfully.

  • I am a Civil Engineer with about four years of experience. I applied for CDR assessment on a fast-track basis. My assessor replied, “It is obvious that you have a top-surface understanding of surface understanding of civil engineering and other scientific principles, ability to do technical analysis, proficiency in application of technical skills, and have contributed to advancement of civil engineering technologies. However, you lack evidences which suggest that you can manage risk, gather knowledge from multiple sources to develop solutions to complex problems, and integrate technical and non-technical considerations in a project. All these are required to perform a Professional Engineering role. The most critical element lacking in your CDR report is that you failed to present a detailed methodology of simulations and analysis and proper understanding of PE assignment sequence as well as duration, development and design frequency of your project. Hence, the best qualification outcome offered to you is Civil Engineering Technologist (ANZCO 233914).

The client was not sure whether he should accept the CDR outcome as ‘Engineering Technologist’ or try to get the ‘Professional Engineer’ rating. While our client would have got him the Skilled Migration Visa but there are certain government jobs asking for ‘Professional Engineers’ in Australia he would not have been eligible to apply for. Moreover, as an ET, he would not have been able to register as a member of Engineers Australia which might pose certain limitations later. So, we helped him draft a better CDR and get PE outcome.

To know more about how CDR Review Service can help your change your CDR assessment outcome, contact our experts at info@cdrreport.org.

cdrreport.org
Rated 4.5/5 based on 1204 reviews
Copyright © 2010-2017 www.cdrreport.org