I thought it was an interesting article. Particularly the part about the long commitment required by graduate schemes - for me the frequent requirement to be willing to relocate to whatever city they place you in was a massive turn-off. I was already relatively old (24) when I graduated, had lived in digs and house-shares and moved between different towns and cities for four years by that point and to be honest just wanted to settle down with my boyfriend in a proper flat in the city where my friends and family live and get stuck into a job. Whilst the extra training opportunities and even free qualifications offered by some grad schemes are good benefits, to be honest I was also sick of studying and being seen as the 'student' or 'trainee' in whatever organisation I went into. Having gone down the experienced hire route I'm now settled down close to my family and friends (where the geographical constraints of grad schemes are particularly felt) and on the second rung of the ladder in my sector. I'm not CEO yet (nor do I expect to be!) but I'm starting to feel established in my career and for me it's been the right choice.
That's not to say that grad schemes are automatically a bad thing - for others who have more geographical freedom or indeed want to try out a new city/cities, or are willing to sacrifice geographical stability and undertake a few more years studying/training for the chance to progress faster or get into a particularly exclusive sector (investment, consultancy, etc), they are great options. But if the ultimate point of your article was that they aren't the only route, then I really do agree.