I don't see a moral or ethical problem with it, no.
And the democratic consensus in most western countries agrees.
Choosing one applicant over another because of prior work history or education is just making informed decisions. Choosing on applicant over another because of their gender is illegal discrimination.
I understand you feel like people who don't have degrees deserve equal footing in the job market. But they don't, and business don't have any moral, ethical, or legal obligation to forego their own best interest and take bets on higher risk hires.
Basically your entire argument boils down to: "It is the status quo", which is not a very good reason for why we should avoid change.
There was a time when it was considered moral, ethical, and legal to hire based on gender and race. Can we assume you have no qualms going back to that so long as the democratic consensus agrees?
No, that is not my entire argument. (However, ASIDE: when every advanced nation disagrees with your view on morality or pragmatism, it does not mean you a wrong, but it does mean you should closely examine your line of reasoning for both pragmatism and consistency with reasonable and well-grounded moral standards. Of course the democratic consensus of all of these countries can be wrong, but it's worth taking pause. That's all. END ASIDE.)
Here is the argument that I have been expressing in various forms and you don't seem to understand or provide cogent counter-points to:
PRAGMATIC CLAIM: Employers are allowed to "discriminate"/select based upon non-intrinsic signals of characteristics relevant to the job at hand.
WARRANT: This is necessary for society/businesses to function because otherwise, it would be prohibitively expensive to hire people using anything other than coin-flips.
MORAL STANDARD I: In order to use a signal as the basis for a hiring decision it should be both a) non-intrinsic, and b) signal something relevant to the task at hand.
EDUCATION MEETS THIS MORAL STANDARD:
a) CLAIM: Education is non-intrinsic
WARRANT: It is something you seek out and work to earn, not something you are born with. (The issue of ensuring universal access is entirely separable (and something I support, btw).)
b) CLAIM: Education signals something relevant to the task at hand
WARRANT 1: Technical background is assured through testing in relevant coursework -- testing that you would have to (at great and impractical expense to the business) reproduce in order to make informed hiring decisions.
WARRANT 2: Education can also serve as a signal of necessary problem solving ability, communication skills, etc.
MORAL STANDARD II: Any moral constraints placed on the set of available signals should not make it prohibitively expensive for business to function.
EDUCATION MEETS MORAL STANDARD II: Because it's a cheap signal to use as an initial filter.
BANNING THE USE OF EDUCATION WOULD FAIL TO MEET MORAL STANDARD II: It would require companies to essentially require a comprehensive examination that is well-proctored etc, which is a pretty huge burden for the company and -- besides -- basically would amount to credentialing anyways because any reasonable firm would outsource this.
Other relevant claims:
CONSISTENCY CLAIM: There exist signals that meet both standards.
WARRANT: Education can be used to select a small number of applicants, and the cost for choosing among those should be marginal wrt the value-added by the employee.
CLAIM: These moral standards preclude the use of race/sex/age discrimination.
WARRANT: these are all intrinsic features that are explicitly forbidden
I don't see a moral or ethical problem with it, no.
And the democratic consensus in most western countries agrees.
Choosing one applicant over another because of prior work history or education is just making informed decisions. Choosing on applicant over another because of their gender is illegal discrimination.
I understand you feel like people who don't have degrees deserve equal footing in the job market. But they don't, and business don't have any moral, ethical, or legal obligation to forego their own best interest and take bets on higher risk hires.