Talk:Professional

Skip to table of contents

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Libraries Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries 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.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Social Work Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Social Work 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.Social WorkWikipedia:WikiProject Social WorkTemplate:WikiProject Social WorkSocial work Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

What is professionalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.68.150.1 (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph about professional conduct should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20:48, 8 March 2007 (talk)

I see no reason for this deletion. John Reid 14:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So then wikipedia is incorrect to call Wayne Gretzky, John Elway, and Michael Jordan professional athletes; none of them have doctorates. Should we modify those pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.246.68.2 (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would also make wikipedia's page on Professional Sports completely wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_sports — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuff (talk • contribs) 21:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need information about the professionalism of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.134.87 (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That really is not the place for it. MadMaxDog 05:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many people in the intelligence community are professionals, but intelligence in itself is not a profession. For example, CIA operations make use of a large number of accountants, engineers, lawyers, various medical professionals, and military officers. These persons are professionals, however many members of the CIA are not.

Professions are self-regulating, while inteligence is politically regulated. Intelligence is still different from military-regulation. Although the Uniform Code of Military Justice can only be changed by an act of congress, all mitary justice is investigated, prosecuted, and judged by independent and objective miltary officeres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.14.215 (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I don't agree with this analysis. While intelligence activities are regulated by laws of their respective countries, not just anyone can be an intelligence officer, which falls under the rubric of professional (the rationale being that being a professional denotes a certain degree of tradecraft expertise and limited mobility into the profession without the requisite skillsets/traits/accreditation). To be an intelligence officer requires one to have a security clearance which, in this line of work, is analogous to having passed certain qualifications (similar to the bar for attorneys). Not everyone can get a clearance and thus be in the intelligence profession (note that I am strictly referring here to intelligence analysts and case officers, NOT clerks or secretaries who may be working for an intelligence organization).

I am reverting the entry to include intelligence officer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.18.57 (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All professions are regulated by laws of their respective countries. I agree that the need for security clearance is an indicator of a person’s qualifications. However, civilians intelligence officer do not self-regulate intelligence. Furthermore, I’m not aware of a universal ethics code that a civilian intelligence officer would carry from his respective post at one intelligence agency to another. Although a military intelligence officer, federal prosecutor, medical examiner, engineer, or accountant are bound to universal ethics codes no matter which agency they reside at.

I am removing intelligence officer from the list of professional fields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.14.215 (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MadMaxDog, I am unhappy that you have removed these categories, which do indeed fit the definition. Social Workers and and Nurses are self-regulating (at least in the UK and I believe in a range of other countries). I am even more concerned that you have used revert which should really be reserved for vandalism

"Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view. Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith."

In the spirit of these guidelines I have not reverted your revert, but would like to persuade you that these catagories should be reinstated" Markoc 15:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I guess you are right. I was likely acting too fast while going through my watchlist late at night.

However, I somewhat disagree with your comment as to the use of reverts. Many, many, things get changed on articles which are clearly wrong or inappropriate or so badly sourced that they should not be in there. It is NOT good behaviour to simply let this stand in all cases, 'pending resolution'. You end up with articles that, at best, grow and grow with 'citation needed' tags. Sometimes, where possible, I do the research to clear it up, and in all cases I try to accompany my revert with explanations why. I also often (but admittedly not nealry always) explain my revert on an editor's talk page. Finally, I also see other people often use reverts on dubious (as opposed to bad-faith or vandalism) edits all the time, and will continue to do so. Cheers, MadMaxDog 23:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the first part of the criteria in this section seems very insufficient for defining a profession. ("Criteria to include following categories: 1. Highest Academic Qualifications ie University College/Institute.")

How is "Highest Academic Qualifications" defined?

What is "highest" when there may be competing standards?

Does this imply that a person who may have a degree which is on a path to a further degree (for example, an MBA degree which can be followed by a PhD means that a person who obtains an MBA is not a professional because an MBA is not the "highest" academic qualification?

I feel this portion of the article needs to be reworded and is misleading to readers. — Mmathu (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a proffesional is a person sho gets paid to do something? i.e. professional sports people are those who get paid to play their cosen sport and workmen who get paid?

I alsways believe that in the UK the term is used say when letting property 'no DHSS people'

Has anyone ay other ideas? Franny-K (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both meanings are given in my dictionary. I've taken out the word "highest." Sunray (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What we are dealing with here essentially is the definition of Social Economic Status or SES. The modified hollingshead scale of social position is as follows:

• Professional – Doctoral level Degree (MD, D.O., PhD or equal): 1
• Graduate Level Degree (MBA, MA, MS): 2
• Four-year college graduate (BA, BS, BM): 3
• One to three years college (also business schools): 4
• High school graduate: 5
• Ten to 11 years of school (part high school): 6
• Seven to nine years of school: 7
• Less than seven years of school: 8
• Less than five years of school: 9
• No Education: 10

The word professional in the truest sense of the word means someone who has a professional (doctoral level) degree - a physician or lawyer or so on. The term professional has become mainstreamed and used to imply white collar working person or commercial such as in the case of a commercial athlete compared to an amateur. Just because someone is getting paid to do a job does not make him or her a "professional". Also the word professional has become confused with expert. Many experts are professionals, but the words are not interchangeable. So the basic idea here is that a profession is a number one on the hollingshead scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.190.59 (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is purely based on the United States. In the UK Law is an undergraduate degree, as is Medicine... (Not to mention that 'College' is called 'University' and BAs are not normally four years...)

Clergy, school teachers and other lesser paid jobs would all be considered professional by a more traditional definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.55.52.2 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This definition clearly needs to include the Professional Engineer which indeed by law is a profession practiced in everystate. It is the equivalent of a MD or DO in Medical, hence the PE must be added.

I also would comment that there are only 5 true professions, Medical, Law, Accounting, Architecture, and Engineering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.16.170 (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'doctoral' definition of professional is problematic. Doctors and lawyers in Australia currently qualify with a bachelors degree, very few have doctoral level degrees. By the provided definition they are not professional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.1.188 (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's nonsensical Bull, I suggest you look up "professional Engineer, no requirement above a BS, experience, passing qualifying exams. PE's are people designing buildings, bridges, etc., licensed to ensure public safety. BTW Getting an MBA is more prestigious in comparison to a BA in business, but it's not any more professional than a masters in sculptng. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.120.202 (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me professional should mean teacher but is usually a euphemism for licentiate, meaning one who is licensed to profit from trade of some form of service

I note also that maybe the article should be a redirect to Profession

Laurel Bush (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The first line for the article is deeply flawed both semantically and gramatically, and contradicts Oxford English Dictionary's, Meriam Webster's and even Wiktionary's definitions of professional.

Here is the revised line:

"A professional is a person who is engaged in a certain activity, or occupation, for gain or compensation as means of livelihood; such as a permanent career, not as an amateur or pastime."

JAlexoid (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is one of the worst I have ever read on Wikipedia 77.167.176.2 (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, there is such a thing as a "Royal Charter". Professionals belong to institutions which confer "chartered status". This is a high level of professionalism (backed by the Queen!) but is only partly related to academic progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.251.243 (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is deeply flawed because it does not recognize the distinction between a legal profession (of which one is a professional) and the "title inflation" that lets just about anyone call themselves a professional. It should be tied to Profession and therefore recognize there are only a limited set of occupations in which one may be considered a "professional". Some key criteria are: (a) a published set of professional ethics (b) state licensing criteria, and (c) a regulatory body that can sanction and even remove one's license. SunSw0rd (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "a professional (doctoral) level degree - a physician or lawyer or so on." is a moronic statement. I've never seen a requirement for a Professional Engineer to obtain even a master's. Experience, passing qualifying exams are more important in becoming a PE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.120.202 (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the definition is a collection of opinions about what a professional "should be".

Worst of all is 7. "Reasonable work moral and motivation. Having interest and desire to do a job well as well as holding positive attitude towards the profession are important elements in attaining a high level of professionalism." As a source it uses Merriam Webster's definition of "professionalism", which just describes it as "the conduct, aims, or qualities that characterize or mark a profession or a professional person".

It really sounds like this definition is an excuse for someone to get on their no true Scotsman soapbox.

We should stick to definitive sources of what a professional is -- government definitions, accepted marketing terminology, so forth, possibly describing varying interpretations of how one would define a professional. We might as well exclude dictionaries as a source altogether. A dictionary is not going to have the level of detail needed to explain the complexity of the term with the level of detail appropriate for this article.

I'm not equipped to repair the problem, but I will insist on preserving the NPOV tag until something is done. 203.219.209.183 (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a position that is "opinion oriented." It is in fact an historical fact. That we dumb down the phrase "Professional" today to include people with a skill is not to over-look the fact that a true profession is a calling in which the professional has a duty to his client that is higher than the one he has to himself. It is his client's interests that are paramount. Here is a cite from an Article on why actuaries ought to be considered professionals. In fact I do not know why they have a higher duty, however and therefore classically would not be a profession.

The classical professions are law, medicine, and theology. The roots of these professions extend into the middle ages. Early European universities had separate faculties devoted to each of these professions. Reproduced from the Encyclopedia of Actuarial Science. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2004. See also "History of Actuarial Profession"Gordon, R.A. & Howell, J.E. (1959). Higher Education for Business, Columbia University Press, New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by That Lawyer Dude (talk • contribs) 22:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the reason these three were classically considered "professions" is that each made a "profession" or vow--the clergy in ordination vows, the physician as Hippocratic oath, and the attorney to serve the state. A teacher or professor, though working with the mind rather than the hands, was not considered a professional for that reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.65.144 (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest that we remember the words of Lord Brougham:

“An advocate, in the discharge of his duty, knows but one person in all the world and that person is his client. To save that client by all means and expedients, and at all hazards and costs to other persons, and, among them, to himself, is his first and only duty; and in performing that duty he must not regard the alarm, the torments, the destruction which he may bring upon others.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by That Lawyer Dude (talk • contribs) 22:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the NPOV tag based on the above information and the reworking of the definition 1 and 4 which states that Professions are guided by a duty beyond that to one's self. Further the addition of the "Skilled" tradesman draws the necessary distinction and has certainly made the section far more neutral based and far more accurate. That Lawyer Dude —Preceding undated comment added 05:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I donot agree to the aobve point and i think that NPOV should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.32.239 (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First professional degrees:

• Accountant (BAcy, MAcc, MAcy, MSAcy)
• Acupuncturist (LAc, DAc, AP, DiplAc, MAc)
• Architect (B.Arch, M.Arch)
• Architectural engineer (B.A.E, M.A.E)
• Attorney at law (J.D., LLB, BCL)
• Audiologist (BSc, AuD, or MS)
• Biotechnologist (BSc, BS, or ALM)
• Clergy (MDiv, STB, STL)
• Chiropractor (DC, DCM, BChiro, or MChiro)
• Counselor (MA, MS, M.Ed)
• Dental hygienist (BSDH, BSc, BOH, RDH)
• Dentist (DMD, BDent, DDS, BDS, BDSc, BChD, CD, Cand.Odont., Dr.Med.Dent. etc)
• Educator (BA, BEd, BME, BSE, BSocSc, BSc)
• Engineer (registered) (BE, BEng, BSE, BSc, BASc, or BAI)
• Forester (BSF, MF)
• Health administrator (MHA, MPH)
• Information scientist (MSIS, MSIM)
• Lawyer (LLB,JD)
• Landscape architect (BLA LArch), (MLA LArch)
• Librarian (MLIS, MLS)
• Minister (Christian) (BD, STB, BDiv, MMin, MDiv)
• Naprapath (DN)
• Naturopath (ND, NMD, BSc, BHSc, BNat)
• Nurse (BSN, BNurs, BScN, BSc, RN)
• Occupational Therapist (MSOT, MAOT, MOT, OTD, Dr.OT)
• Optometrist (OD, B.Optom)
• Osteopath (BOst, BOstMed, BSc(Osteo))
• Pharmacist (BPharm, BScPhm, PharmB, MPharm, PharmD)
• Physical therapist (BSc, BSPT, MSPT, DPT, or DPhysio)
• Physician or Surgeon: (MBBS, MBChB, MBChB, BMed, Dr.med, Dr.MuD, MD, MDCM, Cand.med, DO, etc)
• Podiatrist (DPM, DP, BPod, PodB, or PodD)
• Practitioner of oriental medicine (BSc, MSOM, MSTOM, or DOM)
• Psychologist (PsyD, ClinPsyD, LicPs.)
• Social worker (BA, BSc, BSW, MA, MSc, MSW, or DSW)
• Urban planner (MUP, MCP, MRP, MTP, MPlan, MUEP, MPl, MES)
• Veterinarian (DVM, VMD, BVS, BVSc, BVMS, etc.)

A first professional degree is generally required by law or regulation to practice the profession without limitation, but is not necessarily sufficient to enter that profession. An advanced professional degree provides further training in a specialized area of the profession. Below are some examples of advanced professional degrees.

[edit] Advanced professional degrees

• Computer Science (PD) ( see Columbia University [7] )
• Dental Science (DDSc, Dr.Odont) (advanced degree in countries that award a bachelor degree in dental surgery as first professional degree, usually awarded for outstanding research to a particular field of Dentistry)
• Dentistry (MS, MSc, MDS, MDSc, MSD, MDent, MMSc, DMSc, or DClinDent) (these are usually granted at the culmination of a specialty training program in dentistry in those programs that also require research and a thesis to be completed)
• Divinity (DD or DMin)
• Education (MPS, EdD or DEd)
• Engineering (MEng,EngD,MASc,MMSc)
• Medicine (MD, DO, DM) (advanced degree in countries that award a bachelor degree in medicine or surgery as first professional degree, usually awarded for outstanding research to a particular field of Medicine)
• Ministry (MTh, ThM, STM, STD, DThP, DPT, PrD, or DMin)
• Nursing (CNS, CRNA, DNP, MSN)
• Public Policy and Public Administration (MPP, MPA, MPAff)
• Psychology (PsyD, MSc, MPs, DPs, Ph.D)
• Science (MS, MSc) (also offered in medicine, dentistry, and pharmacy)
• Social Science (DSocSci, MASP)
• Surgery (MS, MSurg, MCh, ChM, or MChir) (Usually granted after completion of surgery training program in conjunction with a research thesis)
• Worship Studies (DWS) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.120.202 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be some sort of reference to the word "Professional" as a buzzword; pretty much every occupation / job / vocation I encounter nowadays lavishly flaunter the word "professional". Of course everyone is interdependent, and specialised in the economical sense; but does that make them a "professional" just because they claim to be? I think in the 21st Century this word is just devolving into yet another buzzword. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.80.123.34 (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be entirely 'original research', and bad original research at that. It appears to have been written as a dictionary entry, rather than for an encylopaedia. There at least ought to be a seperate article Professionalism where professionalism is described. Edit: Profession#Characteristics_of_a_profession comes nearest to describing professionalism. 92.29.116.249 (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article probably ought to be renamed "professionalism" and discuss the concept of professionalism.--Penbat (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like this...

Also, "professional" refers to a person that receives money for performing a job or task, and this article clearly doesn't address that because Wikipedia likes to make things complicated instead of presenting simple information. Wikipedia is too far up it's own ass, sharing the space with it's moronic "professional" editors, to make any kind of effective change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.190.10 (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of professionalism: to do what others are doing the same, but in less time and higher accuarcy.

I Concludes this definition, based on personal experience in my work the difference between the average person and a professional that a professional can accomplish the same as the average person does, but in less time and higher accuarcy which would lead to increased productivity of a professional for the average person within the scope of work.

(Ahmed Hani Abdel Wahab) احمد هاني عبدالوهاب — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed Hany Abdelwahab (talk • contribs) 21:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old comment, I know, but since no one’s replied yet… This definition has serious issues. Firstly, it’s original research in that it’s entirely based on your personal experience. Second, it’s not a definition; it’s comparing attributes of some professionals against some non-professionals. That’s like saying the definition of a fast sports car is that it’s painted with flames, because the fastest sports cars I’ve seen had flames painted on them. —Frungi (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is professional considered exchange of services for a fee? How would the following examples not be considered professional?

1. So would leaving the NBA for one day, then going back the next day means they werent 'pro' for that one day?
2. For the monks and priests that dont get paid, would they be considered a pro?
3. If a pro is just monetary based, that means I can be a crappy lawyer/doctor and still be considered a pro?
4. What about the phrase "He'is a pro.", when playing sports. He's definitely not in the NBA/NHL/MLB/NFL/etc, but still gets referred to as 'pro'. It's a reference based on his skill level.
5. A doctor with all the required degree/certificates/licences/etc is out of work due to the economy or is a doctor without borders. No income at all. Are they 'pro'?
   

ChappyHappy (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section under "Criticisms" isn't a criticism of Professionals, but is a narrow rant on systemic classism/racism in the white collar economy. Further, it reads like an ad for the book and has no opposing viewpoint. I vote to remove the section unless there is better content for criticizing the professional class. Does anyone have a good argument for keeping the content in this section? Galen (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a lot better than it used to be, but still needs improving. There is still plenty of confusion as usage of phrases such as (particularly it seems in North America) "the profession of hamburger chef", or the difference between amateur and professional, does not mean the same thing as the professionalism of doctors or lawyers. Professionalism is a culture of codes of conduct, ethics, body of knowledge, etc. People in power from around the world will look at Wikipedia for guidance as to how to behave, so there ought to be a good well thought out informative article on professionalism. 92.29.116.196 (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are three separate meanings in the article that need to be distinguished: a) what professionalism consists of - codes of conduct, working selflessly for the interests of the client, etc etc b) what jobs or careers are professions or not eg. law and medicine are always considered professions, but in North America people say things like "the profession of car salesman", c) the difference between amateur and professional, eg an amateur or professional photographer or baseball player. 2.101.1.210 (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is taken from an author playing to the gallery, and should be deleted in my opinion. It would be allowable if it was part of a larger and fuller article about professionalism, but currently the article gives too much weight to it. 92.29.116.196 (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2021 and 14 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Neast024.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The general area of professionalism seems to me to be unhelpfully split over several articles, including Professionalism, Profession, Professional Conduct, Professional, Professional Ethics, Professional Judgement and Professional Certification. While there is a lot of duplication, there are also gaps in some that are addressed by others. For instance, the response to uncertified persons working as if a professional is not mentioned in Professional Certification. There may also be some disagreements – concerning different professions, geographies and legislation traditions. How could they be better coordinated? DS0022 (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]