Part of your original question was that you didn't know what criteria the examining panel would use to assess a body of work. It appears that they refer to the photographer's 'artist's statement' to gauge the extent to which the entrant has achieved his/her intentions. That seems necessary in such a system, because as we know, not all art appeals to everyone, so it may not be possible for the panel to tell whether the work has failed to communicate visually, or whether they themselves have failed to 'get it'. The big downside, to my mind, is that visual communicators are not necessarily good with language, and there is no reason why they should be. In an ideal world (well, my ideal world, anyway), the photos should speak for themselves - with the caveat that we don't expect them to speak to everyone.
One could alternatively gauge the success of one's photos by feedback or sales. But I wonder how many photographers ever get feedback from unbiased viewers whose sensibility and judgement they trust? Or have the opportunity to exhibit work or get it into an appropriate market? I can see that for some, the RPS does offer a serious option to get their photos evaluated against a graded series of expectations, and thus to develop their ability. From what we've read above, the letters after their name mean far less to participants than the journey itself, and in themselves make little difference to later outcomes, even in the UK.
