Sorry, it seems I have also added to the muddle, so let me clarify what I meant in two respects:

• I didn't mean that there is a requirement or mandatory minimum of 5 years. It was more, in my attempt to understand why the trainer may have said what he/she did, that I was passing on a general view held by many that, on average, there are not many people who would do so in less. Naturally, there will always be those who impress us by doing so much sooner, and, in theory, it could be as little as weeks, but that is highly unlikely. 

• Nor am I saying that evidence based on performance more than 5 years ago is disregarded, I'm only saying that the most recent and current performance is of much greater interest as it represents who you are now. Historical evidence is great both to demonstrate how you arrived at your current position, and also to provide context - somebody who has been performing as an engineer with progressing levels and types of responsibility  for a time is bound to have been progressing steadily (or maybe rapidly in some cases) to their current point on the path, unless they've simply stagnated. But whether the interval has been 5 years or 5 months, the point is still "if you were able to secure I Eng then, but not C.Eng, then several things must have changed if you are now ready for C.Eng, so we need to know what those things are and, in agreeing with Roy that the valid question is often 'what has happened between your I.Eng award and now", that's where my point about being more interested in that period since I.Eng award than that submitted for I.Eng (and I said it might typically be no less than 5 years, but there may be exceptions), because we already know the performance prior to I.Eng was good and considered worthy of the award.

So, I think you should always include your whole history, but by now, because you have moved on and want to demonstrate why you believe you're now ready for C.Eng, then you may find it better to edit the pre-I.Eng material to a more summarised form and, whether you do or not, you need to put the bulk of your effort for your application into the post-I.Eng performance.


Thus, however you look at it, the C Eng submission is going to need to be very different to the I.Eng application - as Roy says, not because anyone is going to compare the two, or because it is prohibited, but simply to be an effective application. And I was guessing that this may be what was really meant by that trainer, though he/she may have conveyed it in stronger, more black and white terms that made it sound like a prohibition rather than guidance to say "never do it because if you do, your are bound to be unsuccessful", which, for the reasons described, is completely accurate.

Sorry, it seems I have also added to the muddle, so let me clarify what I meant in two respects:

• I didn't mean that there is a requirement or mandatory minimum of 5 years. It was more, in my attempt to understand why the trainer may have said what he/she did, that I was passing on a general view held by many that, on average, there are not many people who would do so in less. Naturally, there will always be those who impress us by doing so much sooner, and, in theory, it could be as little as weeks, but that is highly unlikely. 

• Nor am I saying that evidence based on performance more than 5 years ago is disregarded, I'm only saying that the most recent and current performance is of much greater interest as it represents who you are now. Historical evidence is great both to demonstrate how you arrived at your current position, and also to provide context - somebody who has been performing as an engineer with progressing levels and types of responsibility  for a time is bound to have been progressing steadily (or maybe rapidly in some cases) to their current point on the path, unless they've simply stagnated. But whether the interval has been 5 years or 5 months, the point is still "if you were able to secure I Eng then, but not C.Eng, then several things must have changed if you are now ready for C.Eng, so we need to know what those things are and, in agreeing with Roy that the valid question is often 'what has happened between your I.Eng award and now", that's where my point about being more interested in that period since I.Eng award than that submitted for I.Eng (and I said it might typically be no less than 5 years, but there may be exceptions), because we already know the performance prior to I.Eng was good and considered worthy of the award.

So, I think you should always include your whole history, but by now, because you have moved on and want to demonstrate why you believe you're now ready for C.Eng, then you may find it better to edit the pre-I.Eng material to a more summarised form and, whether you do or not, you need to put the bulk of your effort for your application into the post-I.Eng performance.


Thus, however you look at it, the C Eng submission is going to need to be very different to the I.Eng application - as Roy says, not because anyone is going to compare the two, or because it is prohibited, but simply to be an effective application. And I was guessing that this may be what was really meant by that trainer, though he/she may have conveyed it in stronger, more black and white terms that made it sound like a prohibition rather than guidance to say "never do it because if you do, your are bound to be unsuccessful", which, for the reasons described, is completely accurate.