I totally agree with this
Only a relatively small fraction of the population are sufficiently academically gifted to study for a 'proper' degree. By that, I mean a subject which requires degree level training, such as medicine, law or science, in order to practice the profession. The majority of other jobs would be better served by vocational training.

We need scientists, engineers, doctors, lawyers etc. We also need joiners, plumbers, nurses, people to fill holes in the road and plough our fields. But the latter group don't necessarily need a degree in order to become expert at their jobs - in fact, it may just be a waste of their time to do so.

But as the OP has said, the way of the world now is that it's seen as the done thing to go to university, which means (because you can't make people academically clever) that universities have lowered entrance standards and made degrees easier. And this has devalued the whole system.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Thu 11 Nov 2010, 21:52, 1 reply)

You can actually make people academically cleverer.
Happens all the time in schools. Well, I say all the time... I'm actually in favour of 100% of people going to university*, but that's because I believe in a kind of Star Trek future. What I don't believe in is setting arbitrary targets for university attendance and then expecting school standards to meet them. Sort out secondary education first, and then expand university provision.

*eventually
( Pretender, Thu 11 Nov 2010, 22:09, closed)

I don't believe you can make people cleverer than they are
Although of course it is possible to stretch someone to the best of their ability, and this should be encouraged. Preferably playing on people's strengths. If someone's good with his hands, and interested in carpentry, but is not very bright, why should he go to university? Instead, why not give him vocational training to be the best carpenter around?
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 9:56, closed)

I believe that in some European countries (France? Belgium? Dunno) pretty much anyone can get in to uni, but can only stay if they pass the exams. Sounds fairer to me - the not-very-bright woodworking genius can choose to have a go if he think he's got the potential, and might surprise us all...
(bolshevette, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 14:59, closed)

The problem with that
(in France) is that you lose the sense of personal tuition, and a lot of money gets wasted on students who'll drop out after one year (and the rate is over 50% at some universities). It also reinforces the dual university-grandes écoles system, whereby the privileged get excellent education and the less well-off go to overcrowded unis.

My point wasn't that I believe everyone now should go to uni. Clearly it won't benefit some people, and it's wrong to give the impression that it's the only acceptable path. But if pre-university education gets substantially better, then I can foresee much higher rates of university attendance.

There'll always be differences in intellectual capacity, sure, but why do the majority of Oxbridge students come from private schools? Quality of education, not innate ability.
( Pretender, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 15:27, closed)