Phase 6 · Prepare for the review
The interview
How reviewers question, how to answer without waffling, and what to do when you do not know.
Who this is for:Candidates at any stage
After the presentation, two reviewers spend the balance of the time confirming that you have reached the required level in every attribute area — concentrating on the areas your report left thin.
What the interview is for
Institution of Civil Engineers
- Your reviewers seek to confirm, from your responses during the interview, that you have achieved the required level of competence in all the attributes.
- If you have not demonstrated sufficient evidence of meeting a particular attribute in your report, your reviewers will pose specific questions to try to draw out your knowledge and experience in that area.
- The presentation and interview together last a maximum of 60 minutes for IPR/IIPR and 75 minutes for CPR/CIPR.
- All mobile devices must be switched off before the interview starts, and recording is prohibited.
- Presentation and interview together — IEng level
- 60minutes maximum
- Presentation and interview together — CEng level
- 75minutes maximum
- Reviewers
- 2peer reviewers who must both agreeA third reviewer may attend where specialist knowledge is needed, and an observer may be present but takes no part.
From Incorporated and Chartered Professional Review Guidance, Institution of Civil Engineers.
How the questioning tends to move
Reviewers usually start where you are comfortable and move outwards. A typical sequence looks like this:
- 01Confirmation. "Tell me about your role on the culvert project." They are checking that the person in front of them wrote the report.
- 02Depth. "Why did you choose the overlay?" Now they want the reasoning, not the outcome.
- 03The counterfactual. "What would have made you choose replacement?" This is the question that separates a decision from a description.
- 04The consequence. "What did that mean for the client's maintenance regime?" They are testing whether you thought past the design.
- 05The unfamiliar. "How would you have approached it if the ground had been made ground?" You are now outside your project, on purpose.
The move from three to five is where candidates who over-claimed come unstuck, because each step needs the previous one to have been genuinely yours.
Answering well
Worth doing
- Answer the question asked, then stop. Silence after a complete answer is fine, and reviewers use it.
- Start with the answer, then the reasoning. Reviewers cannot follow three minutes of build-up.
- Use 'I' when it was you and 'we' when it was the team — and be explicit about which.
- Give the number, the date, the dimension when you have it.
- Say 'I don't know' when you do not, then say how you would find out. This is assessed as a strength.
- Ask for clarification if a question is ambiguous. That is what an engineer would do at work.
Avoid
- Guess. A confidently wrong answer is worse than an honest gap, and it invites four more questions.
- Answer a different, easier question. Reviewers notice, and they will come back.
- Bluff about legislation or contract clauses. If you name it, you will be asked about it.
- Talk for five minutes. Long answers reduce the number of areas you get to evidence.
- Be defensive about a mistake. Owning it is evidence; defending it is not.
- Contradict your report. If you have changed your mind since writing it, say so explicitly.
When you do not know
This is worth rehearsing, because the instinct is to fill the silence.
"I don't know" is not a failure. Identify the limits of their personal knowledge and skills is an attribute statement in its own right, at both levels. What reviewers want is the professional version of not knowing:
"I haven't come across that. My starting point would be BS EN 1997 and I'd want a geotechnical specialist to look at it before I committed to anything, because it's outside what I've done."
That answer evidences self-awareness, knowledge of where to look, and a professional instinct to get help — three things a guess evidences none of.
What does not work is inventing a plausible-sounding answer. Reviewers are experienced engineers who have been doing this for years, and the follow-up question will find it.
What they may ask beyond your projects
The interview is not limited to your report. Expect some of:
- Technical fundamentals in your discipline — the theory under the work you described.
- Legislation and duties — CDM, your duty holder role, current health and safety requirements.
- Ethics — often a scenario invented on the spot, to see how you reason.
- Current issues — decarbonisation, resilience, skills, the industry's direction. You are expected to respond as an engaged civil engineer, not as a technical expert.
- The profession — the Code of Conduct, what you contribute, why registration matters to you.
The question bank contains a large set of original practice questions across all of these, and the mock review will run a sequence at you.
Related pages and tools
- Question bankOriginal practice questions across all seven areas and both levels, each with what it is testing and what a strong answer contains.
- Mock reviewRun a practice sequence of questions and follow-ups, in coaching mode or under timed conditions.
- PresentationChoosing what to expand on, structuring it, and the mistake almost every candidate makes first time.
- Current issuesBackground on the themes the Communication Task draws from, with the competing considerations and no prescribed view.
- Professional ReviewThe three parts of the review, how they fit together, and what the reviewers are doing.