https://www.sccourts.org/summaryCourtBenchBook/HTML/GeneralB....
You don’t really want the bar to entry for the roll of magistrate to be too high.
The page you linked states a magistrate must be at least 21, have a Batchelor’s degree, undergo a training program within one year of commencing the roll, with restrictions on their abilities until that and other milestones are met.
This points to the idea that any reasonable adult, with a proven ability to pass at least a baccalaureate, ought be able to administer the law to at least a level of basic competency while they simultaneously commit to the career path by undergoing relevant training.
Magistrates who are licensed attorneys have fewer restrictions and can progress faster.
Is there some other set of rules you would prefer?
Should the average higher-education-qualify adult be prevented from participating in the judiciary?
That doesn’t seem like an argument a citizen of a democracy wound intentionally make.
They are rubber stamping warrant requests without any consideration of the Constitution, how is what I'm proposing anti-democratic?
This might be a bit spicy, but I don't think that a bachelors degree should count as higher education anymore. So, no, the average higher-education-qualify adult shouldn't be prevented from participating in the judiciary, but I think the bar for 'higher-education-qualify' should at least be a post-bachelors degree specific to the field.