One of the things I've considered recently is the balance between RM professions. What determines skill cost development? What inherent qualities define a profession? I think these and other questions have never been clearly laid out, and are thus part of the profession dilemma.
For example, I've taken quite a shine to the Combat Companion, particularly the variable cost-for-effort method of the combat styles. Using that system, I began to revise the list of skills and costs for the allowable professions in my campaign. That revision made me take a closer look at the Warrior Monk, and realize that the primary characteristic of that profession is the reduced costs for the adrenal moves, particularly adrenal defense. It might even be said that without that significant advantage, there is little reason, from a pure mechanics perspective, to choose that profession. The way that factor is incorporated into the combat styles, this advantage is greatly diminished.
To the point: I think this could be approached one of two ways.
Option 1: (The easy way) The profession defines the "mindset" of the character. It structures the way he thinks, and cannot be changed. The RM professions are really more of a "thought template", and group people generally into these categories. After all, a "fighter" profession can learn subterfuge skills, he just may not have as much of an aptitude for them as a "thief" profession. Even if that fighter spent all his time theiving and sneaking, he would never find it as easy to learn as his friend the thief.
For your above example, this would mean that the warrior set aside his blade, but did not find it suddenly easier to learn the ways of academia. He would have always approached his studies from a warrior's perspective, finding the learning as arduous as any other soldier. Yet, if he were forced to pick up his blade again, he would find that he relearned his skills as rapidly as he once did. His body might need conditioning once again, but he would find it easy to revert to the drills and exercises of his former profession.
Option 2: (The hard way) The character actually changes professions, and thus changes the way he thinks about the different skills. The warrior casts off the ways of his old life, and with meditation and discipline, no longer thinks as a warrior, but as a scholar. He may have to work to learn the basics of his new life, but because he has fully committed to this new path, he is no worse off than any other acolyte. He learns fully as easy as they do, and if you were to require him to hone his skills as a warrior, he would find it difficult to place himself back in that frame of mind.
To make this second option work, I would want to define a true "empty vessel" template for the professions. The No Profession profession is not that empty vessel; it is an average of abilities, attempting to walk a middle ground, but still playable. The empty vessel would be unplayable - it would represent a ground zero worst case for all skills, and then would be buildable into the various professions. Say, if you had 100 points of some kind of system to spend on refining the skill costs for a particular professsion, the empty vessel could then be shaped to become a fighter, a thief, a druid, a bard, whatever. By purchasing groups of skill reductions, you could shape a profession. This would include things like a spell-users list pick advantages, and even a fighter's professional level bonus advantage.
This is something I would love to see laid out and clearly defined, as I think having the ability to "build" professions consistently would be of value to many a GM. I think such an effort might require a re-evaluation of the core professions, and a few might even be slightly tweaked to make a more consistent program, but it's something I'd love to see. This is what I though of when I ran into my concern over the Warrior Monk and the CC, and why I led with that thought.
For me then, using such a system, the warrior-turned-scholar would give up chunks of his past life/profession, and build a new one to represent his newly chosen field. This shouldn't be a min/maxing power game exercise, but one carefully considered by the GM.
My thoughts on the subject, anyway.
