This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
--Strategic Learner 12:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)This article seems to propound a point of view and is clearly in need of expansion. --Vincej 09:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I tried. I also removed the first sentence since it made no sense to me: "Those who use the term foster (wittingly or no) the impression that any work, no matter how menial or reluctantly undertaken, ranks as one of the professions." Comments on my edits are welcome. Janet13 06:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Janet - it seems that connection with that individual's quest for work improvement. I have also encountered some highly professional wait staff in, of all places, a fast food restaurant. Professionalism, in my opinion, is possible with anyone who works, regardless of their vocation or status. It's as much about attitude as anything else. Strategic Learner
Professional development classes aid in building knowledge in working professionals work styles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that two merger proposals have been put forward but merger discussions had not yet been set up. I wanted to lend my support so I am putting this here. Also, given the similarity between the two proposals (i.e. merge from Initial Professional Development and Continuing professional development), it seems like we should be able to discuss both concurrently.
Support - Both the 'merge from' articles are of low quality and riddled with trivial information. I think the merger would be a good way of trimming the non-encyclopedic content. I also think that a single article will sufficiently cover the topics and make it easier for editors to keep on top of the subject. Cheers Andrew (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)