Some 30 or so years ago, at a time of scant employment, it was deemed a brilliant idea to reduce the number of unemployed by increasing the time that young people remained off the register by becoming students. Since there is only a very finite requirement for real world qualifications, we wound up with letting academics indulge in academia for its own sake, with BA degrees being invented for all sorts of useless spurious dross, these being fed to people who in preceding years would have spend the previous 5 years or so (2 Years gathering A levels, 3 for the degree course) in gainful, experience gathering, employment.
The academics thought this was great, as it ensured that they had steady, highly remunerative, jobs that were usually better than actually working for a living. A fools paradise, as you can only put that problem off for so long before something horrible happens. I expect that many of the spurious BA's went into banking and similar, where having a degree, and the assumed level of ability to learn that was implied, was more important than the subject of that degree. This last was explained to me at a careers meeting at my son's school by a pair of well spoken, well dressed prats about 25 years ago.
Does that count as a rant?