It does show the lack of extreme values for higher-skilled people, surely this has some statistical significance ? Especially in a situation where you would ex

It does show the lack of extreme values for higher-skilled people, surely this has some statistical significance ? Especially in a situation where you would expect the distributions to be of the same type ? Unless they had messed up in failing to normalize the number of points per group, and so this might come from the law of large numbers failing + sheer randomness failing to create extreme values on higher-qualified, but lower population groups ?