The problem with buzzwords is that they only generate buzz when you don't understand what they mean, and when you don't understand what they mean they are meaningless to you.
So you can say "core skills" and people will be "wow, these are probably the most important skills!" but then you tell them what you mean by that and the buzz will go away and they'll apply their original opinion on the importance of these skills. Either that - or they'll argue with you about the terminology.
I think names should be descriptive. They should not try to force a connotation - that never works, not in the long term. I do agree, though, that the term "soft skills" is doing the same thing - trying to use the choice of words to lower the opinion on them. And it doesn't work - it did not lead you or any of the commenters here that support the term "core skills" to believe these skills are not important, did it?
But why not pick a descriptive name, like "team skills"?
The problem with buzzwords is that they only generate buzz when you don't understand what they mean, and when you don't understand what they mean they are meaningless to you.
So you can say "core skills" and people will be "wow, these are probably the most important skills!" but then you tell them what you mean by that and the buzz will go away and they'll apply their original opinion on the importance of these skills. Either that - or they'll argue with you about the terminology.
I think names should be descriptive. They should not try to force a connotation - that never works, not in the long term. I do agree, though, that the term "soft skills" is doing the same thing - trying to use the choice of words to lower the opinion on them. And it doesn't work - it did not lead you or any of the commenters here that support the term "core skills" to believe these skills are not important, did it?
But why not pick a descriptive name, like "team skills"?
Team skills are only a little part of soft skills, many of them are personal skills or intrapersonal, but not team skills.