Alasdair Coades' words are carefully chosen: "These responses suggest that professional registration can also boost earnings", although (based on what is shown here) even the word "suggest" is a bit strong for me. There is a correlation between mean increased earnings and professional registration in each level of seniority, but - all together now - "correlation does not imply causation".


For example, let's say that for the first three years that an engineer works at a particular level of seniority they are ineligible for registration at the relevant level. This means that the mean for non-registered engineers would include three years of "juniority" of staff not included in the mean of registered engineers. (Not very well explained I'm afraid, hope that makes sense!)


Or there's the fact that it tends to be older engineers who opt for registration, again this will skew the figures if a like-for-like sample of non-registered engineers has not been taken.


Now, as you all know, I'm a great fan of registration and very happy to promote it for a range of reasons. But I've always been wary of suggesting that it will directly increase earning potential - and, unless there's more evidence here I don't think this helps make that case. (Indirectly registration may help by providing access to a wider range of jobs, or possibly jobs in more highly paid industries.) Meanwhile, the risk of raising false expectations (with a consequent backlash) is always very dangerous.


To be fair: in his last job before he retired, when he went to work at a Polytechnic, my father did get some highly appreciated extra pay because he had previously been Chartered. Ironically, by then he'd resigned his institute membership (having changed his field). It's the closest I've ever come to hearing of a direct correlation and causation between registration and pay. I'd be interested to know if any roles today (this was over 40 years ago) offer such a bonus.


So overall at face value this seems to me to be a potentially slightly naughty claim. But maybe the underlying data is better than it looks.


But anyway the salary data alone is fascinating!


Many thanks for the links Moshe


Cheers,


Andy

Alasdair Coades' words are carefully chosen: "These responses suggest that professional registration can also boost earnings", although (based on what is shown here) even the word "suggest" is a bit strong for me. There is a correlation between mean increased earnings and professional registration in each level of seniority, but - all together now - "correlation does not imply causation".


For example, let's say that for the first three years that an engineer works at a particular level of seniority they are ineligible for registration at the relevant level. This means that the mean for non-registered engineers would include three years of "juniority" of staff not included in the mean of registered engineers. (Not very well explained I'm afraid, hope that makes sense!)


Or there's the fact that it tends to be older engineers who opt for registration, again this will skew the figures if a like-for-like sample of non-registered engineers has not been taken.


Now, as you all know, I'm a great fan of registration and very happy to promote it for a range of reasons. But I've always been wary of suggesting that it will directly increase earning potential - and, unless there's more evidence here I don't think this helps make that case. (Indirectly registration may help by providing access to a wider range of jobs, or possibly jobs in more highly paid industries.) Meanwhile, the risk of raising false expectations (with a consequent backlash) is always very dangerous.


To be fair: in his last job before he retired, when he went to work at a Polytechnic, my father did get some highly appreciated extra pay because he had previously been Chartered. Ironically, by then he'd resigned his institute membership (having changed his field). It's the closest I've ever come to hearing of a direct correlation and causation between registration and pay. I'd be interested to know if any roles today (this was over 40 years ago) offer such a bonus.


So overall at face value this seems to me to be a potentially slightly naughty claim. But maybe the underlying data is better than it looks.


But anyway the salary data alone is fascinating!


Many thanks for the links Moshe


Cheers,


Andy