Yes, people without qualifications are not doomed, but I would say that their chances of a decent job are dramatically decreased.

Here we have vocational qualifications and apprenticeships, as an alternative to many education courses, if a person would prefer to do a more practical course related to a specific job. At the moment, they are seen as less skilled, less intellectually demanding qualifications, but I think it's a step in the right way. Practical education can be applied on a much wider scale. I think that more practical, interactive education techniques should be applied to mainstream schooling as well. There are different ways of learning, and a hybrid between textbook and practical teaching methods might be just what alot of failing students need.
If students can see how subjects are relevant to them, and its practical application, they might just be more interested. For instance, archaeology. If you take students on more practical lessons and show them archaeology and the skills they've learned in practice, most of them will be more motivated and interested. Or, for instance, English Literature and Drama. Take kids to see a play or something, nurture their interest in the subject. It would definitely help alot of male students, who tend to be more interested by practical applications. Costs? Well, not much if the various organisations involved make arrangements.

There is alot of concern about "health and safety" issues, I know. Schools and councils are afraid that parents will sue if something goes wrong in practical lessons and on school trips, and there should be protection against that. Wrapping up kids in cotton wool doesn't help them.

Since you guys started a thread on education, I should contribute since I'm still studying.

I think the problem is not only lack of education but also the wrong kind of education. The educational system is too old and outdated. It was formed like what, in the 1800's? The curriculum they're giving now is full of useless lessons that we eventually forget anyway. imagine that we spend more than ten years learning these lessons that we will mst likely never use once we leave school. In high school they teach physics, complex algebra, chemistry but when you're eventually going to apply for lets say, a sales employee at the friendly neighborhood department store, is your customer going to ask you, "What is the velocity I need for this sweatshirt to go over my head?"
They have to be more specific in school, by high school they should already be teaching us lessons for our future jobs. That way, future employess will actually know more about their jobs and be more efficient.

I agree. Most of the teachers who've taught me have consistently tried their hardest to teach their students. Some bad, downright lazy teachers as well, but I think it's rather the teaching methods, curriculum, and materials they have to work with that are the biggest issues on the teaching end. I don't think that lessons should be duller or harder than they have to be to get that knowledge through, but students have gotta put in that effort and get their noggins working too. Too many college and university students screw up their education by getting drunk and screwing about. Though it doesn't exactly help when lessons are un-engaging and dull. Some students aren't lazy, but are disengaged by writing down dull facts which don't seem to be applicable, relevant, or understood, and then having to remember it all for exams.
Just jamming facts into pupils' heads without understanding or relevance is characteristic of an exam factory rather than an actual school.

Some pupils ARE lazy and unaspiring due to their lifestyle, outlook, and low aspirations. It can be argued, however, that some kids don't have such realistic aspirations because some topics don't seem like they can be applied. Education needs to be more active for some students.

This has happened to me before. AS-level Physics didn't seem engaging, it was just basically remembering so-called facts, no real understanding! I read around the subject, to no avail. I was demoralised by the seeming lack of relevance, clear explanation, or engaging lessons, even though the teacher performed supposedly interesting practicals, she didn't explain the concepts properly. I could have succeeded in Physics if there was less of a focus on meaningless equations, and more on the actual application and explanation as to how things worked. Instead, I was bored stiff and disengaged. It truly felt like we were simply being trained for exams. Maybe it just wasn't the subject for me anyway, but I could have achieved at least a C, and better understood the concepts involved under a more structured, inter-relevant curriculum.

I've since moved on to subjects which are more useful for my aspirations, but still, AS level Physics wasn't pretty.