I have a slightly different take on this from most of the above. My experience is that if you're looking to enhance your early career prospects, the apprenticeship would be my recommendation because it leaves career starters rather more grounded in the real world.
However, there's a catch. Over about the last 20 years or so, there's been an increasing tendency towards a glass ceiling. Assuming you want to be in IT, sooner or later careers move from "coal face" IT into IT management and that is where the glass ceiling hits. Initially a strong CV was sufficient but as increasing numbers have that, competitive pressures look for other ways to differentiate and I've seen an increasing tendency first to require degrees, and more recently, second degrees and/or 'status' degrees.
I don't know if it's everywhere, but I have seen it in some big corporations and especially in government-related jobs. It also seems to be more prevalent in the US but it's happening here too. I have seen superb engineers have to go out and get degrees in their 40s even to be considered for the next rung, and that's no fun at all at that age, while doing a hard job and with a family.
The problem is, OP, at your age the point I'm talking about is maybe 15-20 years off, which seems like an eternity. What worries me is that initially, that step started to require a degree and work against, then lock out, non-graduates. But then the bar started to rise further and I now see people looking for better degrees, maybe MBAs, because all candidates have work experience and first degrees. So, what will be the criteria in 15 or 20 years? Who knows.
Personally, I don't like the above, don't agree it's a good idea, and have argued against it. I think with several strong, experienced, credible candidates for such jobs it has to be a thorough interview process and assessment of personal characteristics that differentiates between otherwise credible candidates but sadly, especially in more bureaucratic organisations, managers like to cover their asses by hiring people on the basis of paper evidence they can point to to justify their choice rather than letting their oen experience and gut instinct talk. After all, you can't document and file instinct.
Honestly, OP, I don't know what to advise.
Put it this way. If I were hiring entry level, I wouldn't eliminate anyone either for your apprenticeship route of the 'better' degree. The apprenticeship would score extra points but my final decision would be my assessment if each candidate and character is very important too.
If I were hiring at management grade 15 or 20 years in your future, I don't care which route you took for degrees, because it's ancient history but I'm aware, having been on the losing end of that argument in some recruiting decisions, that there's an increasing trend towards fancy degrees. In think it's a cop-out personally, by insecure managers looking to export responsibility for choices and I won't hire that kind if jobsworth manager. But there's a lot of them out there.
That, by the way, is a major reason why I left 'bureaucratic' employment a long time and and set up my own business. I hire the right people (the odd mistake excepted) for my needs, not the ones with best paper qualifications or best-looking CV.
And no, I'm not Alan Sugar. But I get where he's coming from.
