I apologise if this is resurrecting an old post, but I felt I needed to add a counter to some of the points you make here.
There is a problem, and it starts in schools, not because of any major deficiency in teacher’s ability, but more because of many years of tinkering and measurement by stats rather than capability that is enforced on schools, and is ever changing with each iteration of government. This is further compounded once learners come out of the compulsory (said with a tongue in cheek) with their GCSE C or Level 4/5 score (whatever the new metric aligns with) then they are now faced with the route of either going into employment, employment with further training or further education. This is to cover the government mandated babysitting programme to stop the NEETs (Not in Employment Education or Training), so anyone over 16 and not in compulsory education (They have finished their GCSE’s) and under 18 must be doing something educational or they don’t get any government benefits. This section of learners of learners is worth of another discussion on its own. Whilst they are not all to be tarred with the same brush, these learners tend to be the ones who have not achieved their GCSE’s or managed only low grades and are not wanted back in the school as they are not good candidates for progression to 6th form.
Anyhow, to the point. The key purpose of the courses offered at FE and HE level is to provide the level set and show ability to learn/function at a given level. Along the way, a course will provide key basic knowledge, language, working practices and certification that a learner has met a minimum standard of skill / ability or knowledge and understanding. The point of this is that anyone emerging with an accreditation at a given level is of a level useful for an employer. Yes, further development is required, but it is the short cut to higher salary as the extended years of training (Apprenticeships) is reduced.
Apprentices have their place, but it has been my direct finding, having worked in the sector, that they are abused. Many L2 or 3 Apprenticeships are undertaken by small companies where there is little or no intention of offering final full employment. This has been compounded by the employer directly benefiting financially, not just being able to cheaply expand their workforce. With the governments new restructuring of how apprenticeships are paid for with the Apprenticeship levy this is further compounded again and actually favours smaller business and encourages them to take on apprentices. Note there is no test on intention (keep or get a new apprentice at the end), no measure of retention (what happens to people who have completed their apprenticeship) and very little in the way of checks on quality and staffing ratios (how many apprentices a company has)
Many one man bands (Frequently literally just one man, a dog and possibly a part time cat) outfits look at the benefits to them and see a potential repeated upside.
Yes, for small businesses that is a potential £1k per apprentice (per year if they are taking apprentices on a one year course, and yes there are plenty of these) At the time of writing this, the minim pay for an apprentice under the age of 18 is £4.05 per hour (£162 per 40 hour week) This is just 58% of your quoted dream job at £14.5k and a good indicator that if retained then a life of minimum wage employment is a strong potential reality. Unless a person is on a higher level apprenticeship, in which case this is a very different scenario.
I put it to you that anything under a higher apprenticeship, where the structure is very different and the employer is grooming new employees for the long term, is potentially fraught with more problems and dangers and potential scenarios where there is no qualification and little training. The problem here though is that getting onto one of these higher level apprenticeships can be harder than getting into university with regard to the grades required.
TLDR
So what are we left with, well we are back to the position where an education to A level standard, (traditional Maths, English, History etc.) or Via a BTEC or equivalent route where the subject studied is vocational but still to the same standard is required. The main thing I would like yourself and others to do, before condemning courses as “bullshit” is to actually look at the course specifications (freely available from BTEC and other awarding bodies) read the marking criteria therein and course content details and then decide if something is “bullshit”. The gaming course you reference above and the IT courses have units that cover project planning (Using PRINCE and Agile methodologies), business planning and forecasting, research, marketing and communications, as well as subject specialisms (game design) among many other transferable skill that are taught and are in high demand from employers because they are not taught in schools. And here we are back to the original problem.
Before any replies come out, please people, inform yourselves, don’t just shoot from the hip.