I don't buy that reasoning. If that were true, they'd cease doing anything for marketing purposes. In reality, a brand and a reputation of educational leadership is something that requires continuous investment.
Correct, and top universities do that through investment in research and publication rather than populist fads.
Every once in a while people call into question the value of higher education and ask whether MOOCs mark the end of traditional universities. I find it ironic that when top universities flex their muscles and start asking those people to pay up for classes - the same classes that you otherwise would have had to go through admissions and tuition to get into - they're being called money grabbers.
Maybe we should have a Coursera-like site exclusively for non-US universities, then. Meaning the courses are taxpayer funded and free for students (or, in some places, you might be paid to take them ;) ).
Why, I'd like see teaching and testing separate in that case, so the information stays accessible, while the capitalization on the students is left to those in need to submit to it. I suppose that's what you meant.
The judgment on exercises that is helpful to the students in traditional universities is a factor proportional to the size of courses. On the one hand there is automatic testing, that's feasible in basic matters. Take Khan Academy for example. A test that anyone can do with advanced knowledge is a simple application.
The motivation to really learn, that some get from deadlines, is learned and it's less direct than an actual want to understand a topic. In that sense, while a job doesn't need to become a passion, the drive to really dive deep into a topic comes as part of a hobby and so the tax payer would probably not want to afford that. But that is a different topic and I'm biased against taxes.
In any case, costs could probably be reduced so much per student, that it needn't be the driving factor, far from the tuition that is payed now.
