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.