Here's my rough criteria when selecting applicants for technology roles:
1) What have you done lately that is like what I want you to do?
2) What is your attitude like? (past references very important here)
3) Have you taken some test or certification (or can we give you one) that demonstrates skills in areas we might be concerned about?
From there, perhaps you can start learning, that is, it might be worthwhile to talk about a position. But all of that factual and procedural knowledge will be put to the test when you are inserted into our actual environment where your social skills are going to have as much to do with your value as your technical skills.
None of that involves a college degree (unless the job duties and environment mimic the college experience), and it all fits nicely into some kind of apprenticeship program. Yes, there can be a lot wrong with apprentice programs, but "apprentice program" is a very, very broad term. The trick is going to be in the setup and execution of the program.
I freely admit that we apprenticeship supporters wave our hands around a lot while yelling "apprenticeships! apprenticeships!" without providing necessary detail. But I really feel that under this rubric is where the eventual solution will lie. We need to bring education down to be as close to the actual work environment as possible. We need more rapid feedback loops in education and more specific, tailored in situ instruction. Apprenticeships do this.
Note that there is another topic -- the importance of a classic liberal education -- which I am a huge supporter of. But I think we have mixed up two concepts: things that directly translate into money for me and my family and things that make me a better overall person. Both may or may not be important to a particular person, but by mixing up the terms and lumping them all under "college education" it has confused the education argument to a terrible and unnecessary degree. This confusion is what is at the heart of the seemingly-unsolvable education discussion.