Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every time I see someone post this line of reasoning they talk like this, as if other engineering disciplines all have some cert that is the god-tier cert. While this is true for some engineering fields it's mostly not true and I think that's a good thing because credentialism is bad actually. Also, architects are not even engineers.
Credentialism is good. It provides both a trustworthy reference point and a method for punishment. If I want someone to do work, I want them to be licensed/certified. If they are flagrantly unsafe, I want a licensing board or similar to be able to strip that person of their ability to practice that profession. This raises public perception of the profession as a while, avoids a market for lemons, and gives some basel…
You're just arguing that you want to outsource your own decision making. You actually should interview your candidates before hiring them, whatever credential they have, because it actually is your job to ensure you work with high quality individuals.
Credentialism basically allows the sort of low effort that you're describing and causes many places to rely solely on the credentials, which are obviously never sufficient to find high quality individuals.
What are the jobs you're day dreaming about that require PE exams? I'd bet that requirement is much less common than you think.