This is a predictable response to the nature of the product (education), the nature of the market (mostly clueless teenagers), and the uncertainty within that m

This is a predictable response to the nature of the product (education), the nature of the market (mostly clueless teenagers), and the uncertainty within that market of the eventual value of the product (chances of getting a job, how much it will pay, what-am-I-going-to-do-with-my-life, etc). Colleges know that the target market of teenagers cannot come to a reasonable and calculated evaluation of the market value of the degree they are selling, so they bundle the product with anything and everything that makes prospective students and their parents feel more comfortable. Most Americans want their children to go to college, and most American teenagers have a vague understanding that it's something they should do, but there are too many unknowns for the target demographic to have any confidence in their investment, so those universities which succeed in alleviating the most fears and doubts have a competitive advantage. This dynamic is a historical anomaly. Education has historically been trade-based, and later, a luxury of the rich who could afford to study less practical (but still important) matters. The former had a very predictable ROI that could be evaluated reasonably, and the market for the latter type of education wasn't typically concerned too much with the financial ROI of their investment, but with other types of value derived from it. This is the fundamental problem of industrialized education, both state-controlled and private. A complete return to a trade-based system of education is impractical for many reasons, though it may help greatly in some smaller schools and regions, typically those with a dominant and stable large employer or two. On the other hand, most universities would collapse if education once again became the luxury of the elite. MOOCs are not the answer either, at least not until the certifications they provide are widely accepted as predictable indicators of a good employee (and presently they are not). They may be a very attractive option for "continuing education" types of learning that the article references, however.