I think it's a false premise. The purpose of learning is to understand the topic at hand. But school's purpose isn't for learning, primarily. It's for accredi

I think it's a false premise. The purpose of learning is to understand the topic at hand. But school's purpose isn't for learning, primarily. It's for accreditation and getting a paper saying you learned certain things. And then you use that paper to get a better job, make more money, and get things like retirement and health insurance. (It used to not be that way - things changed after the GI bill... but I digress.) If the school was non-profit and did as such, failure would not be wasted money or a permanent grade against you. Failure would only be lost time... But that's not how it is. Failure haunts you the whole time. The negative grades stay in the form of ever-approaching GPAs. But if you buy more classes, you can buy the average a slightly bit higher IFF you get better grades than the average. The moral dilemma is that schools are using the threat of continuous harm of failure(GPAs) and harm to the pocketbook over taking a class and not doing well in it. Schools and their teachers aren't on the hook for bad teaching. It makes sense when possible to use other methods to make sure your grades and wallet aren't harmed. I believe it would be different if schools were actually on the hook for teaching what you paid them to do. That calculation would certainly change - we wouldn't have "weeder" classes... Well, not in anywhere near the same way. (Wonders just how much schools make on failing students. I'm sure there's an Atlantic or Vice writeup in that question.)