Nirth: I'm sure in many work places there's an arbitrary policy to have a formal education because reason.
Absolutely. The more settled and well-understood the job field, the less forgiving the education requirements, at least in the USA. Getting into tech in the early 1990s, I saw the last gasp of the true "wild west" tech atmosphere - when people without college degrees, certifications, or even experience were getting snapped up for then-impressive salaries, just because they were "a computer guy" (and we were almost all guys 25 years ago, so that's been a nice change recently).
But there has been heavy pushback in the last few decades (maybe longer, but I'm not old enough to remember) against the institutional education requirements. Go to Monster.com and look for "network engineer" jobs that require a CCIE or CCNP + 7 years experience, and you'll see that the certificate plus experience is still accepted in lieu of a college degree. It's been that way as long as I've been a network nerd, but I imagine that will not be the case when I'm hitting retirement. IT fields change abruptly; consumer technologies evolve at a truly frustrating pace for anyone in charge of handling infrastructure. Thus, the business suits haven't been able to homogenize the fields completely, yet. College is still an option. Now, go look for any field that's well-developed. Accountants, teachers, research scientists, medical professionals. Even lawyers (tidbit: as recently as when my father passed the bar in Georgia, there was a law that stated people didn't have to go to law school to take the bar exam as long as they could demonstrate that they had "read law" for..I think it was two years. Passing the exam was sufficient; showing that you could do the job was enough. Formal education not required. That law is of course gone now.)
But, yeah. I don't know anything about stevedog's experience in the bank, but your guess is generally right, and not field-specific. Must have degree because reasons. The larger the company, and the more established the position, the less likely you'll find flexibility in that.
Trilarion: Valueing one kind of debt higher than another may be seen as a bit unfair with regard to the other creditors who may have to reduce their own claims even more in case of a bankruptcy.
It's extremely unfair, and that's the point. If you were to, say, look into US law about homestead exemptions, immunities to corporate debt, and protections of certain savings types, you'd see how disgusting it is that driving businesses bankrupt is still a really good way to get rich. As long as you're getting rich, you're not in a situation where you're accruing a lot of non-dischargeable debt. And bankruptcies are neither forever, nor particularly painful, here. They're just a seven-year itch.