Yes. I'm also skeptical of any discussion of balance that doesn't come with some very clear ideas about the specific game and playstyle being balanced. To start with, the term balance these days tends to be used to mean, "equally useful in combat". But what if the game isn't combat focused? How do you "balance" a hacker, a cop and a nurse? So much depends on the nature of an individual table or even session.
At least in those cases the venue of their operations are different enough they're going to be not having much comparison to each other. But yes, a lot of games are going to look at how characters compare in combat, because its one of the few places everyone is expected to participate (usually because it takes up more gametime than making a couple of medicine rolls). But it can absolutely apply in other areas (if you've got a campaign all about intrusion, being substandard in those skills is going to feel pretty terrible (and sometimes actively like its dragging the group down) if its notably worse than other people too, unless your other skills are so necessary its just accepted).
Basically, as someone put upthread, as far as I'm concerned, people should get to pick where their characters are weak, not have it forced on them by the dice.