Today in the US, the greatest predictor of a student's future wages are the wages of her parents. Mobility is actually lower in the US than in other countries, Europe included. Despite that, for the lower class, those who get into college tend to have much higher mobility than those who never went at all. That's often because you learn unquantifiable skills, in addition to work-training, that enable one to function in the higher echelons, and elite institutions tend to make it part of their mission to grant admission to people outside the majority and in the lower class (though that's changed a lot and are once again skewing into the rich only, though ethnically diverse).
Highly uniform, scaled classwork is probably good for technical training. It makes sense for those who will enter into regimented work in a knowledge economy, who inevitably will be commoditized. Like programmers who no longer learn how to collaborate creatively, but instead function in a narrowly-defined scope at their cubicles.
But if there's less demand among the poor to go to college, the wealthy will further entrench those non-tangible resources -- participating in cultural institutions and gaining connections that usher one into management-level positions -- in elite institutions. A Winklevoss won't skip the private boarding school and guaranteed Harvard admission to get a $7k diploma online. Neither would Andy Kessler, the Ivy League grad who wrote that op-ed. But a poor student who otherwise might have a shot at learning more than just "job training" just may. And be hired to do the grunt work by a Winklevoss.
Stuff like this will only accelerate the decline of mobility and further entrench a rigid class system.