At the same time it was still possible to rise through the education system and enter the professions. A degree meant something then.
A degree meant more in the past because fewer people had them, which kept those who didn't 'in their place'. Many people who were perfectly capable of university were denied the opportunity and had either to stay in lower paid jobs or work round the clock taking night classes for years as well as working full time.
Expansion of education has given opportunities to a lot more people, and it saddens me when those who have benefited from the expansion of education in their own youth (eg grammar schools and 'plate glass' universities) seek to cling to the elitism from which they benefited. It's a more even playing field now in some ways. It's not equal by any means, but when people have degrees they still have to prove their worth in the workplace, unlike the days when a degree was an automatic passport to professional or managerial status, regardless of aptitude or experience. I think that is fairer, and better for society as a whole.
When I was a student a lot of people went into the civil service straight from university, at (junior) managerial level. They had no experience, no knowledge of CS policies or practices and were 21, but managed people who had many years' experience, knew the job and associated office politics inside out, but were stuck on lower rungs because they had no degree. that's just one example of what was a commonplace situation.
I would far rather have a system whereby a lot of people with degrees have to compete for the promotions and opportunities that used to be seen as a right for graduates - a right that was denied those who hadn't had the opportunity to study beyond school. Yes, there are still those without degrees, or without any qualifications at all, but that's a different conversation.