The bluff I'm referring to here is the measurement. The notion that an educational experience can be meaningfully measured, and that such a measurement can be guaranteed well enough to prevent uneducated people from obtaining fraudulent certification.
I don't see learning as a compromise with economics. I see each as entirely irrelevant to the other. Certification is not a tool for learning; it is a tool for capitalism. A certification is nothing more than evidence of victory over the educational institution. Sure, the intended path to victory involves a lot of learning, but we humans can never be truly constrained to intended paths. That's a good thing: we shouldn't be.
Without school and tests, the majority of the people won't learn a thing. They are too dumb, selfish and lazy to do so. They need to be coerced into learning. The system may not be the rosy image you have in mind, but human nature makes it almost unavoidable.
> it is a tool for capitalism
All communist states had normal schools and certification. Without it, the state would collapse.
We're not completely free agents, and we can't be. That's one of those Rousseau-ian delusions. We need to cooperate to form a society, and it needs to be fairly strong in order to thrive. Hence, education.