Non-tech "hard skills" that are easy to evaluate

[marshwiggle]

The things that are typically described as "soft skills", such as critical thinking ability, communication, etc., are different from many more "technical" skills in that they are valuable but hardy to quickly *verify or evaluate. On the other hand, there are other non-technical skills that are quick to verify or evaluate. Examples I can think of:

• Fluency in a language (speaking, reading, and/or writing)
• Musical ability, such as ability to play an instrument
• Athletic ability, such as ability to play a specific sport

What other things like this could be part of a formal or informal education but that would be easy for a potential employer to verify/evaluate?

(* I make a distinction between "verify" and "evaluate" since a few minutes may verify that a person has the skill in question to some degree, even if evaluating the extent of the skill may take longer.)

[MoJingly]

Oh this is an interesting question. As a musician, I'd actually argue that the items you listed have both technical and non-technical aspects. You can be a great instrument player without being a great musician. So with that example I'd draw a distinction between "musical ability" and "ability to play an instrument" as they are very different!

Ability to play an instrument = play in tune, play in time, have a good sound, etc.
Musical ability = play with emotion, play with interpretation, play well with others, etc.

[Parasaurolophus]

Following instructions?

[mythbuster]

Much of modern biomedical science requires manual dexterity. This is not really "technical" in the sense that there are no electronics involved, but you need to know how to properly use micropipettes, serologic pipettes, how to work with both hands at the same time etc. The analogy I use for this are chefs and knife skills- a fundamental skill to the entire field. We teach and evaluate these abilities in many lab classes. I'm teaching these skills to a new group in my research lab right now.

I'm not totally sure if those are the type of skills you are thinking about though.

[sinenomine]

Information literacy?

[marshwiggle]

I'm glad to see this getting some discussion. One other aspect of the things I was thinking of was that they take lots of time and effort to develop, so if a person needs one of them for a job, they can't learn it in a few days or even weeks; they need to have them "out of the box".

The important thing about these is that they have nothing to do with credentials or the signalling value of a degree; since they can be empirically evaluated they can't be faked.

[apl68]

Most of the employers I'm acquainted with are simply trying to find somebody with the ability to show up and pass a drug test.  They may not even worry about the latter.

[mamselle]

Teaching dance, art history, theater, and music, as well as the occasional French class, I've never seen a split between "only" teaching what you "know" or what you "do."

They flow together.

Like life.

M.

[Biologist_]

Much of modern biomedical science requires manual dexterity. This is not really "technical" in the sense that there are no electronics involved, but you need to know how to properly use micropipettes, serologic pipettes, how to work with both hands at the same time etc. The analogy I use for this are chefs and knife skills- a fundamental skill to the entire field. We teach and evaluate these abilities in many lab classes. I'm teaching these skills to a new group in my research lab right now.

I'm not totally sure if those are the type of skills you are thinking about though.

In lab classes, I often teach hands-on skills but I don't necessarily get the chance to evaluate them. I can usually identify the students who are really inept and sometimes tell if a student is exceptionally proficient, but the labs don't necessarily include the right kind of deliverables to evaluate the students' hands-on skills. I have thought about adding components to some of the classroom labs specifically so that I can evaluate bench skills more clearly but I haven't done it yet.

In the research lab, the individual skill level is much more evident. Sometimes there are surprises, like the straight A student who struggles with any procedure involving manual dexterity or the B student who can't grasp the conceptual basis of the lab work or make sense of the workflow but can do the individual steps flawlessly.

[Liquidambar]

In the research lab, the individual skill level is much more evident. Sometimes there are surprises, like the straight A student who struggles with any procedure involving manual dexterity or the B student who can't grasp the conceptual basis of the lab work or make sense of the workflow but can do the individual steps flawlessly.

Or in my case, the straight A student who had severe anxiety about ordering reagents.  Nobody could have guessed that until I was in grad school.  After I ordered a chemical that turned out to be 1) highly toxic, 2) the wrong chemical, and 3) non-returnable, I switched to theoretical pursuits.

But yeah, I don't know how you'd easily evaluate "Doesn't have inconvenient hangups about weird things."

[Wahoo Redux]

Ability to follow directions and recreate document design (ex. being able to format a "white pages" report correctly, write a cogent letter following a model, or follow the rules of a corporate guidebook).

Ability to explain difficult concepts (ex. I hate, hate, hate it when IT people throw a meaningless initializations followed by numbers at me---and then can't explain what they just said.  Mechanics and bartenders are the same way).  "What's the PCBN number on that app?"  What!?

[marshwiggle]

There needs to be a distinction between habits and skills. A practice which is not a habit can nevertheless be performed if necessary, whereas a skill that a person lacks can't. I'm interested in skills, and especially ones which take months if not years of focus to develop, because they give people who have them an unquestionable edge in seeking employment. They're things that no one can fake, or learn quickly in a few weeks on the job.

[Vkw10]

The ability to communicate professionally with diverse audiences.

That one is difficult to verify quickly, although a carefully constructed day long interview can demonstrate someone lacks the skill. It's amazing how often I've seen people fail in professional communication when they're asked to talk with clerical staff, undergraduates, faculty in a different field, potential donors, and deans during the day.

[ergative]

Writing coherent emails.

For writing, this includes things like:

• An informative subject line (for later searching)
• Bulleted/numbered lists for things that go beyond a single request
• Time frames and expectations for what the respondent should do
• An awareness of professional tone/writing conventions appropriate to the context (I still grit my teeth at a now-retired colleague who considered punctuation other than '...' and capitalization unnecessary for emails. It was the constant ... that got my goat.)

For replying, this includes things like:

• Replying to all parts of the email--e.g., inline with different colored text, or with a matching bulleted/numbered list of your own
• Confirmation of receipt of all the points--e.g., not just responding to the first two of five bullet points, but responding to the first two and saying, 'for points 3, 4, and 5 I need to check with X and get back to you.'
• Reassurance about comprehension --e.g., not just, 'great, here's a zoom link', but 'great, here's a zoom link for our meeting on Floosday, Xth Blarng, at 10:00 am.'
• A firm understand of the difference between 'reply' and 'reply all'

Whenever a colleague sends me a well-formatted email, or responds to my emails with in-line/matching bulleted lists, I'm so happy to know we're on the same page about communication. When colleagues send four-paragraph missives that convey effectively the same information, but elegantly woven into a composition with introductions, transitions, and elegant prose, I groan and have to fetch my sieve to sift out the elegant cruft and determine what, exactly, I need to respond to or whether they actually did respond to all my question.

[apl68]

Whenever a colleague sends me a well-formatted email, or responds to my emails with in-line/matching bulleted lists, I'm so happy to know we're on the same page about communication. When colleagues send four-paragraph missives that convey effectively the same information, but elegantly woven into a composition with introductions, transitions, and elegant prose, I groan and have to fetch my sieve to sift out the elegant cruft and determine what, exactly, I need to respond to or whether they actually did respond to all my question.

Although I'd like to think that I'm not too bad about this, I suspect you might not like receiving e-mails from me.