3 ms·

Re: average level vs good at them: part of the problem is that they mix skills that almost everyone has to a certain degree (like reading comprehension) with sk

Re: average level vs good at them: part of the problem is that they mix skills that almost everyone has to a certain degree (like reading comprehension) with skills that very few people possess (like coding). Re: any kind of skill vs being the best performer: they're clearly not referring to best performer skill. Part of their analysis is based on "Time to enter [which] depends on how much training it takes to enter the jobs in which the skill is important." So the level of skill has to be something like entry-level skill for the lowest level of job using the skill. Otherwise the time to enter measure would be meaningless.

coldtea 9y ago
>Re: average level vs good at them: part of the problem is that they mix skills that almost everyone has to a certain degree (like reading comprehension) with skills that very few people possess (like coding). If some skills are a boon to success, why would they be constrained to be one or the other type? Some would be common in most (but not great in the majority, like reading comprehension skills), others would be rarer (like coding or managing people). >Re: any kind of skill vs being the best performer: they're clearly not referring to best performer skill. Part of their analysis is based on "Time to enter [which] depends on how much training it takes to enter the jobs in which the skill is important." So the level of skill has to be something like entry-level skill for the lowest level of job using the skill. "Entry-level skills for the lowest level of job using the skill" can still be compared relatively to others entering the same job -- so a ranking as being the best performer among your competition still makes sense. Clearly they didn't mean you have to be best in the world, or among the top in your country in those skills. Just better than most you're competing against.

coldtea 9y ago

>Re: average level vs good at them: part of the problem is that they mix skills that almost everyone has to a certain degree (like reading comprehension) with skills that very few people possess (like coding). If some skills are a boon to success, why would they be constrained to be one or the other type? Some would be common in most (but not great in the majority, like reading comprehension skills), others would be rarer (like coding or managing people). >Re: any kind of skill vs being the best performer: they're clearly not referring to best performer skill. Part of their analysis is based on "Time to enter [which] depends on how much training it takes to enter the jobs in which the skill is important." So the level of skill has to be something like entry-level skill for the lowest level of job using the skill. "Entry-level skills for the lowest level of job using the skill" can still be compared relatively to others entering the same job -- so a ranking as being the best performer among your competition still makes sense. Clearly they didn't mean you have to be best in the world, or among the top in your country in those skills. Just better than most you're competing against.