An important root cause of the distribution and choice of the referendum vote and the polls used here is that of wealth. Most of the younger voters who wanted to remain were concentrated around London and the SE and they are those most likely to belong to relatively affluent families, which in turn have been more able to afford to send their kids to university, even through the recent years of steeply rising tuition fees.
The bread-winners of these wealthier families in the SE are also more likely to be pro EU as many of them are employed by large multi-national corporations, which promote the EU down through their managerial staff hierarchies (EU policy favours big business) and which also extensively lobby the EU in Brussels. The children of these breadwinners must be influenced by their parents and that is natural. All of the young people in the UK have grown up with the EU there as a constant reference point that they may be scared to lose and I understand that too. But I'm glad that some of the kids have had the vision to research the pros and cons of EU membership, critically, and come to their own conclusions.
To say that more people with a higher level of education voted remain is probably true. However, many of those who have recently graduated have had the chance only after the availability of places increased dramatically, after most of the poly-technical colleges became universities and especially after Blair's policies of the 1990's - possibly good intent but at what cost? Many academics have recently voiced concerns about dumbing-down of marking/grading, lowering of course entry requirements (grades) and plagiarism, which is apparently all too common.
Do we need 50% of the population to have a BA (Hons) Angry Birds anyway? Looking at the TV interviews of the young remainers demonstrating in London on the day after the referendum, many of whom said they were students, present or recent, most of these were able to demonstrate little or zero actual knowledge of the EU, it's structure, it's workings or who the main leaders were. So I would have to say no, we don't we need 50% of them to have an Angry Birds degree.
There is a better case for less pure universities and a return of more colleges which would grant credible, achievable, practical and respected diplomas and certificates in technical and other needed fields. This would encourage higher standards across the board and maybe even help stop the fees going up! The student loan debt figures indicate a shambles!
Lastly, it is totally unfair to accuse the older voters for being uneducated (assuming that that means at least a first university degree). What chance did most of them have of attending university? Especially post WW2? The number of universities were far fewer and available places fewer still.
TGIF Happy Hour