So there are no universities that do what I’ve mentioned?
See how fun it is when you assume how it is in your country is the same in all the other countries in the world?
So in your country where the government pays the fees (I’m going to assume that is what you mean by “no fees” as I imagine academics are paid in this country), they do so because they care so much about the wellbeing of academia… or do you think the higher income graduates earn plays a role in increased taxation? Or do you live in a country without income tax?
Funny how people want to attack what you say, rather than refute your actual point: Universities (today) are corporate training grounds.
Rent seeking causes that correlation (so there is actually a causal relationship): Some professions require certain university degrees. They pay high wages. Universities found out they can extract a rent on future earnings of potential entrants. So you could actually argue that by requiring the degree the firms not only create the rent extraction, but also de facto agree on the curriculum.
That's pretty universal (worldwide) I guess? White collar corporate staff that is predominantly unversity educated. That still doesn't mean the curriculum is or should be corporation directed or focused. I know little about this, but India and South-Korea come to mind where there might be more direct links. UK as perhaps a counterpoint where you can find corporate role with an Oxbridge arts degree, or France.
At least for undergraduate studies, most universities have the same tuition regardless of major (outside of lab fees for courses which need lab materials). The tuition of a particular university is more related to its prestige level than the particular majors its students choose.
So the ridiculous fees that correlate to average wages of the profession you graduate into is just a weird coincidence?