I think the problem on both sides of the essay involves a single point of failure in the social analysis. Teaching is a form of human relationship, between two people, older than speech, which was the primary form of human cultural transmission, before speech, for millions of years. We are highly evolved for teaching relationships, which are not merely transmissions of knowledge. Hence your failure to identify what is either right or wrong with law school. (Your hypothesis that the professional certification function is the primary function of a trade school, whatever the kind, is framed by disregarding the relational nature of teaching.) So is your analysis of the future of education as a social process. To imagine that the personal relationships in education can be "free" is to disregard the scarcity of human sensitivity and attention which is the price of all significant human services. A labor theory of value has become a theory of labor anti-value. But neither teaching nor psychotherapy can be conducted "free" even if, like Cooper Union since the time of Peter Cooper until yesterday, no tuition fee is charged. But Peter Cooper left his land for the tuition-free education of the working class (a job later assigned to the City University of New York, which did indeed provide tuition-free higher education in the 20th century, through socialism) knowing that what a man or woman pays for teaching isn't necessarily the money that pays the teacher's salary, but the half of the relationship that, just like the teacher's half, is indispensable and therefore pricy..