I think we are in full agreement! > For safety issues in particular getting an engineer to sign off some plan when they will be accountable for that authority

I think we are in full agreement! > For safety issues in particular getting an engineer to sign off some plan when they will be accountable for that authority later is often easiest if you simply design the thing properly. That's exactly right. An engineer aims to build a safe and reliable product (not because the credentials tell him to)! The regulatory myth is that all products are death machines until being redeemed. That's why I say it's 90% social. The engineer builds a reasonable product. With regulation they do the same, but now they need to do work to frame that same work in regulatory terms. Real fixes are made. The value isn't 0, but it comes at that cost. > no-one would seriously suggest that a new grad's degree was an equivalent credential to the years of demonstrable professional experience That's exactly what I'm saying! Professional experience and reputation within the field is what: 1. gives someone influence and credibility. 2. results in safe and reliable engineering projects. And note that those are actually informal defined qualifications. It's NOT the credential! So trying to add credentials to software is an attempt to bump the quality of new grads and has little to no impact on the quality of engineering leadership. As you said, the recent undergrads already lack power and influence, and the credential is simply the bare minimum to participate.