So do you think that those with some bit of paper to their name are always the best farmers and the most worthy of investment while those with out some bit of paper but a perfectly good farm non the less should be discriminated against as far as public money is concerned ?
Bits of paper mean very little but if you want me to invest £££ in a project then i depend on what you can tell me about it's chance of success to make a decision . The bit of paper at least tells me that the person has completed a course and has some understanding of the basics (i have no formal education beyond school)
I think that this article is based on one mans view about what might happen in 15 years time
I also understand that direct payments are not likely to be for farming but for providing public goods in the way of (eg) flood mitigation, wildlife amenities , access etc etc (If that's the case then the best qualification will be a degree in Zoology or Environmental Science )
Many of the best farmers that i know (in a business sense) are those that have no traditional experience in farming, can read spreadsheets and keep a keen eye on market developments