Fair point to feel a little harangued by the cost of education, but the incongruity isn't quite so irrational it seems. This has always been the way of things - dues must be paid, costs must be levied to keep people in their place, this is the order of things, and has been for a very long time. The idea of a free education at any stage is a relatively new concept, historically speaking, and even then public schools' cost to its users (kids, parents who decline to send their children to prestigious private schools for financial reasons) are levied via taxation instead of fees outright. It always costs money, but the amount paid, and the personal/professional advantage gained vary widely.

Sort of broadly applied throughout history, it's a kind of way to establish and maintain the strata (see definition 3B) of society. You or your family must have the funds to send you to school, and if you can't pay to learn, you don't, and you go to work when you're deemed old enough. If you're lucky, you apprentice with family, if not you labour at any task which earns your bread, so to speak. The only real break in this system has been subsidy to ensure that less wealthy families' children can attend school to learn to read and basic math (as well as PE, science, literature, art, etc.), and people's ability to generate loans specifically tailored to post-secondary. It sucks ass, but please believe me when I say that it could be much worse.