Solid point, I may be just looking at previous editions of Twilight 2K too much when really, it'd be more apt to probably look at the other Free League games and adjust accordingly as I've already seen people doing. I would still argue Education has a place as a skill if Profession doesn't, and the idea of instead translating those more career specific talents onto specialties would be a good replacement instead if you don't dig my implementation. It's not a very granular system in the first place, yeah, but my intent with homebrew is seeing how nice of a balance I can strike between the dynamic storytelling stuff Free League games seem good at promoting, while also staying true to some of the realism-based granularity that is the hallmark of a T2K post-nuclear setting.I think that having very specific things like that which overlap significantly doesn't really fit the design of the game, although I see where you're going with it. It sounds like an approach more consistent with the existing design would be something like the Electronics skill but then an Electrician specialty which allows more sophisticated "moves" or even just to skip die rolls altogether in some circumstances. (on the other hand a core concept in the game is that we shouldn't be rolling for menial tasks of any kind... it's sometimes hard to square that up with big variance of skill levels).
I won't argue the semantics of what military organizations would teach what or etcetera, because I find a lot of people get bogged up in "realism" arguments (not to say T2K isn't a game that benefits from it), but it boils down to me wanting to differentiate a character who picks up Stealth because they learned it in the context of the military, versus a career criminal/intelligence agent/special ops character who is actually trained in how to break into a place, case a building, lockpick, etcetera. While you may be inclined to ALWAYS want both of them, I can see situations where a backstory would explain why someone is only good at one as opposed to the other. Only good at stealth? Yeah, Airborne taught the character how to evade enemy patrols once we're in the AO, but Sarge sure as fuck didn't give them a class on how to lockpick the door to the farmhouse they could hide in. Only good at intrusion? Character was a career criminal who was more focused on smash and grab along with intimidation, it wasn't his job to sneak into the place. I agree with most of your assertions though, particularly that fleshing out specialties would most likely be the best route to go if you're trying to go in-line with the original intent of the system.The answer here is that if you get trained in slinking around the dark and going into places you don't belong, you're going to learn most if not all aspects of that! The Rangers are gonna teach you how to step softly and how to avoid shadows and how to use breaker bars, wire-cutters, and bypass common security elements. Because it's all part of the same job. And the same could be said for if you were a criminal. Sneaking your way up onto a ledge is great until the first time you need to get into a locked window. These skills are in pursuit of the same goal. So approach them from a goal-oriented perspective and it all makes sense.
If you're looking at languages in the context of the base setting, then yes, it'd be limited particularly if you go off of the information available in the 4E Alpha lore. But outside of Polish, English, and Russian, you have all of the languages of the coalition/soviet allies that have gotten wrapped up in this post-nuclear clusterfuck and I think it's worth keeping track of languages in a more nuanced way than just whether you're fluent or not. That way, you can create interesting points of tension or suspense that otherwise wouldn't be present if the player simply either couldn't communicate or could do it just as intended. The Soviet soldier is offering to show you a way through the minefield, but you can only understand that much from the little bit of Russian you picked up since the bombs fell. Do you choose to trust him, not knowing the full context of what he said? Stuff like that. Again, maybe a bit too granular/specific for a system like that and better suited as a specialty, but I'd probably prefer it as a skill. (Not to say that, you would have someone rolling language EVERY time they try to communicate. If it's within the scope of their knowledge and reasonable to convey without them fumbling on their words, they wouldn't need to roll. Telling the Polish militia that a marauder technical equipped with a mounted SPG-9 is about to crest over the hill however, with a D in Language (Polish), would probably need a roll to convey the specifics needed for them to react accordingly with that info.)