PG vs CPG

I could have written my Monday post any time in the last two years, because that's how long it took for me to start various parts of the PG application process, trip up on some aspect of the application, and then get a huge buildup of fieldwork and put the whole thing on a back burner.

For my foreign and non-geologist readers, I should explain that every state has their own requirements (or lack thereof) for a PG. The national association of state boards of geology (ASBOG) has a nice listing here of all the requirements - just click on the state flag for each. Generally, if you have a state with a stricter list of requirements for the PG (like mine), it's easier to get your PG in other states.

By the time I got my act together for the state PG, I had enough experience (and knew enough geologists) to apply to be a CPG through the American Institute of Professional Geologists.

I started working on the PG in my state because it was included in job listings as desirable, if not required. In my few interviews, the lack of a PG was clearly seen as a negative. I admit that I don't know much about the CPG designation. Certification-collecting doesn't help with my current gig - nobody seems to care one way or the other, other than that it shows I have some initiative and ambition.

AIPG tells me that a CPG is an awesome certification, will open all sorts of doors, prove that I'm an upstanding person, etc etc. But they have a vested interest in promoting CPGs. Readers, can you chime in with your opinions of the CPG designation? Is this something that I should work on, and will this actually promote my career/help me move into higher management/more technical positions?