arguments against the division of labour came out of a nineteenth century context, where specialization was less pronounced and factory work was particularly vicious - people died in factories all of the time, after having been relegated to the working class, and therefore discarded as expendable. these arguments need to evolve with the technology, and the realities created by it.

holding to the crux of what the anarchists were trying to say on the point means the following:

(1) we should abolish the feudal idea that people are born to perform certain tasks. in a modern context, that would mean something closer to abolishing foreign workers on farms than it would to abolishing grades. the point is that people need a way out.
(2) none of us should be assigned to accomplish the same task for our whole lives. that is, we need to be able to change careers, sometimes. that is something that is normal now, and was quite esoteric 200 years ago, where your entire identity was defined by the task that was assigned to you.

arguing that we should be allowed to change our role in society, which is the point of arguing against the division of labour, does not imply that we should be waiving requirements to demonstrate that you're qualified to do the job in the first place. it just means we shouldn't force people into menial roles for life, which we do continue to do.