Why We Need to Rethink How We Define Skilled Technical Workers

The way we classify skilled technical workers is broken—and it's impacting both workers and the economy. A new study reveals that the current definition misses hundreds of thousands of technically skilled jobs, from modern stonecutters using laser technology to aircraft assemblers working with complex systems.

Issues In Science and Technology posted an interesting article titled Retooling the Definition of the Skilled Technical Workforce. The article, authored by Guy Leonel, Vicki Lancaster, Sarah McDonald, and Cesar Montalvo claims the way we classify skilled technical workers is broken—and it's hurting both workers and the economy. Their study reveals that the current definition used by The National Science Board misses hundreds of thousands of technically skilled jobs, from modern stonecutters using laser technology to aircraft assemblers working with complex systems.

The researchers claim The National Science Board's definition of the skilled technical workforce relies on outdated survey data that focuses on education credentials rather than actual skills. This approach uses the Department of Labor’s Occupational Information Network (O*NET) system, which asks workers to rate their knowledge across 14 STEM domains on a 1-7 scale. Jobs that don't score at least 4.5 get excluded—even if they require sophisticated technical skills. Take stonecutters: They've evolved from using hand chisels to operating CNC machines, CAD software, laser scanners, and water jet cutters, yet they're not considered part of the skilled technical workforce under current definitions.

The researchers propose focusing on actual job skills rather than degrees and using real-time job posting data instead of small, outdated surveys. When they analyzed 91,000 job postings with over 5,000 skills, they found 56% more occupations qualified as skilled technical work compared to the current system. Eighty-four additional occupations—including sheet metal workers, automotive repairers, and aircraft assemblers—were identified as requiring advanced technical skills.

Getting the definition right has real consequences: better workforce planning, improved career guidance for nondegree credentials, enhanced economic competitiveness, and more recognized pathways to middle-class careers. As technology rapidly transforms work, our methods for measuring skilled technical jobs must evolve too. The current system can't keep pace with how AI, automation, and digital tools are reshaping occupations. By embracing real-time job data and focusing on actual skills, we can build a more accurate picture of America's technical workforce and better support the workers who keep our economy running.

I strongly encourage reading the entire Issues In Technology and Science article.