I think it's worth pondering why you feel paying tuition enters the assessment of the situation. The justification would seem to stand on its own either way, right? Or would your opinion change if tuition was free?
Mandatory attendance makes more sense if tuition is free, because it's not the student's resources that are being wasted, it's whoever is paying the universities.
I don't follow how this implies mandatory attendance makes sense in one case but not the other.
If you believe lack of attendance is "wasting resources", then either you think the class isn't doing its part by teaching what students need, or you believe it is and yet students are not learning the material due to lack of attendance. In the former case, the problem is poor teaching, and so attendance isn't the solution. In the latter case, then the same argument would apply regardless of who's paying.
What's the logic here? Is there a third possibility I'm missing?
Ok, let me reframe then. Imagine you paid for someone's tuition. Would you like them to go to class and get the education you paid for? If they, after several years of them not attending lectures, fail to be educated, was your money wasted?
Now imagine you're a big donor. You donate enough money for, say, 10 scholarships. None of them attend class. None of them get degrees. Are you likely to donate again?
Again, I don't think this addressed my point at all. The whole premise that lack of attendance causes a failure in education is contradictory with the assertion that exams/assignments are sufficient for ensuring learning and attendance is not a necessary requirement. You can't argue it both ways just based on who's paying, the arguments are directly contradictory.
