It's one of those conundrums, isn't it? Clearly an education system which is capable of identifying student's strengths and playing to them whilst at the same time being able to respond to changing needs in the wider economy is theoretically a much better system than a straight 'one size fits all approach', but one has to reflect on whether it's actually practically achievable.
Certainly I would agree that there are far too many graduates out there with unsuitable degrees and unrealistic expectations who are now saddled with crap jobs and large amounts of debt, and at the same time there are far too few young people who have in-demand practical skills and who would be able to make a really good living without a degree. I know guys who run extremely successful businesses: electricians, stonemasons, hard landscapers, painters and decorators, general diy businesses, and they are all monumentally busy and unable to recruit decent young people to learn the trade.
The problem as I see it with the old system was inequitable distribution of investment and resources and a highly class-driven approach that pretty much condemned working class kids to life as factory fodder and channeled upper-class kids into management roles for which they were eminently unsuitable - but this was a fault of execution rather than underlying principle. But are we in any better position to improve this were we to try again?
