College/University and formal tertiary education is not necessary

"Graduates from high school that received the highest ranks and A+ grade are applying for jobs instead of university courses" -You have also stated that these are the people who would have no problems being employed to do various respectable jobs. This is great and it also means that people can start their income at an earlier age as they possibly skipped the 2 to 5 years of education (roughly). However, you and I both know that this does not apply to everyone. It only applies to those at A+ grade. We should also keep in mind that the grades students get in high school is only an initial stage and that things can be very different in College or University, as those who don"t do as well in High school can go on to do much better in college and the A+ students in High school can end up realising that their potential is limited once they are in college or University. So presuming that High School A+ students should have the opportunity to work before the students who are not up to that level, YET, is very unfair. "Training, Experience and Education is more important to employers" -You may be right in saying that training schools and directly applying for work gives you training and experience. But it does not necessarily give you education. There is a fine line between education and qualification and a University degree is the proof of both. Colleges and Universities will not only deal with the subject you are training for but they will also educate you further on morals and ethics and build you up with discipline and knowledge which High school and jobs alone can"t do. And as for employers, why would they put their effort, time and possibly money to train and qualify employees to work for them, especially while the global economy is becoming increasingly competitive. Wouldn"t they rather have employees with University degrees that show that they are full on ready for work? Some employees maybe willing but most would probably not be so willing. "Universities seem like a government scam for money" -While University fees may seem ridiculously high, it is in government"s interest to educate people and build a strong nation. The high fees show the value of Education and there are ways for even the least financially stable students to be educated in universities through loans, scholarships, and reduced fees depending on the student"s family income. So there are ways around the high fees. "With the internet available many can gain knowledge easily so where does that leave University?" -If the Internet is a substitution for Universities then there must be no need of primary schools or high schools either. But there is a need. While the internet maybe a place where one can study and interact and communicate with each other, but it is in no way the same as going to a place of learning, where there is an assurance that learning is taking place. -And as for a degree, you have stated that it is just a piece of "paper" that suggests that you have "sat through your lectures" and "passed your exams". I would rephrase that and say that the "paper" in actual fact suggests that you have achieved your goals and proved yourself to be a qualified AND well educated person. The degree also expresses capability and the ability of collaboration, research and organisation. Universities and colleges build us to be organised because without organisation it is unlikely that you would "pass you exams" as you put it. Same goes for research and collaboration. "Why not just do an exam for a job instead of a degree" -Because an exam for a job only limits your knowledge to that one profession and does not show that you are educated, may show that you are qualified, but not educated. Whereas a degree shows a wider range of skills and knowledge. As for my views on social democracy I would say that it is fair to practise it however it might not be appropriate to be socially democratic about everything. By social democracy I understand that you are more or less talking about free will. And I will say that free will should be prohibited if it is sensible to do so and if it benefits the society generally.