The Enlisted and Officer divide, does it need to exist?

You want choices? Well, you got choices! If you don't like the difference (divide) between Officer & Enlisted ranks, get some gumption about yourself and get yourself qualified to advance as a Warrant or Commissioned Officer. So, I am your huckleberry - now, show me with your deeds, not words, or move out smartly with the status quo. It aint easy to challenge yourself to be all you can be!

Like MAJ Carl Ballinger says, " a solution in search of a problem." For the double whammy I'll even quote Robert Heinlein, "Our system is in place because it works." (Starship troopers)
Now I'll pay Devil's advocate.
Historically (let's say from the 1600- 1700's), a strictly delineated officer and NCO corps made sense. Educating and maintaining a professional officer corps was a national defense priority given the huge investment in general education, advanced (for the time) mathematics and engineering. That usually meant that these officers came from the wealthy (read "noble") class. The British empire, probably due to Cromwell and his revolution, became more egalitarian and allowed merchants (usually also educated) with enough income to purchase commissions and later attend private schools on a commissioning track like Harrow, Eton, Winchester, and Radley.
The thing to remember here is that Army sizes varied greatly. Even as late as world war 2, 1939 army strength was 187,000, only fifty thousand more than we maintained throughout most of the thirties. ( source: Secretary of War annual reports) That later peaked in May 1945 at over eight million. That original tiny force was responsible for training and leading that much larger army.
On the enlisted side things were different. With the exception of mercenary companies, the average soldier was a conscript. If you were lucky, maybe a militia member who could lead his own flintlock. Remember, I'm not going further back than the 1600's. The huge armies of Louis XIV, Napoleon, Frederick, were just that. A corps of highly trained officers backed by career NCOs with some battles under their belt running huge armies of conscripts. One of the most decorated soldiers of our revolutionary war, Peter (Pedro) Francisco, was offered a commission by Washington (turned down)in spite of being barely literate. (Instead he accepted a custom broad sword). Our civil war armies were somewhat better off, America always placed a premium on education, the average private could read and write. But plan and execute the movement of large numbers of troops? Ha.
Today is different. For the first time in history the education of the enlisted corps is comparable to the officer corps. What is the difference between a 23 year old Specialist with a bachelor's degree and Lieutenant? Four elective classes, summer camp, and a different AIT? OCS and a different AIT? Yes, it's facetious to state it that way, but that's what it looked like to me as a 20 year old PFC fifteen years ago.
Fraternization was also a major problem. Since the average enlisted was not a professional soldier boundaries were created and enforced. The typical person, even today, most likely wouldn't understand why his friend would send him to possibly die. Conversely, could the average person send his friend to die? The enforced separation of ranks minimizes this. Formality and tradition maintains it.
So now, in our modern, professional, all volunteer Army do we need this separation?
Education is probably the easiest. The quality of education has consistently gone up and the quantity of college educated people has only gone up. ROTC has proven that a civilian oriented education is no barrier to a successful and productive military career as opposed to a military focused education at the service academies or the military experience based OCS. The average private has an education lords four hundred years ago dreamed about and career NCOs wished they had before world war two.
Barring world war 3, the days of a conscript army is dead. We all volunteered, hopefully cognizant of risks associated with our chosen branch. For better or worse the process of professionalizing the army(I.e. The enlisted branch) has made the NCO corps more akin to the officer corps than its historical roots in the "common man". That professionalism is what has blurred the lines between the two and affected the fraternization topic so much.
Merriam-Webster defines professionalism as "The skill, good judgement, and polite behavior that is expected from a person who is trained to do a job well." If we have a professional army aren't we enough of professionals to know when to work and when to play?
So why not let the lines evaporate completely? Let's make it so NCOs can transition easier to the officer corps. Eliminate the age cap on commissioning programs like ROTC and OCS. Maybe create a Limited Duty Officer program like the Navy has/had for NCOs lacking a bachelor's limiting promotion potential to captain. Remove the restrictions on fraternization between the officer and NCO corps. Why shouldn't the captain and First sergeant, or S-3 OIC and NCOIC be able to grab a beer and play cards? They are professionals, right?
I don't know if this made any sense. I started typing around six and kept coming back. I really like arguing the unpopular side, even if I don't agree. I hope some people on both sides enjoy the long read. Thanks.

I think the system we have is fine. We have made a series changes from the British model. As you can see they really don't even have warrant officers. We have a better system and ours is less focused on officers. Our system is the best in the world. It is like say we are the best company in the world but we are running it wrong. If we were running it wrong how did we get so good?