The trouble is, things are always about satisfying markets, whether we like the market it satisfies or not.
For example, in the early days of the university in England and France, higher education served to satisfy the market of younger-child aristocracy who needed something to do to make them valuable to their family. It's no coincidence that monastaries, reading, and higher education were very often neighbors, and sometimes part of the same organization- they served chunks of the same market. That the universities started opening themselves to lower scions of aristocracy was a side-effect of how profitable that market could be, and the value that graduates could provide. [0]
In a more modern example, the disciplines of higher education that have less-certain ROI, but are still judged to be valuable, or serve education for education's sake: I would say that those serve the market of people who are either idealistic, or believe they understand some long-term feature of humanity that the 1-year, 5-year, or generational time-scale markets ignore. They pay the price, but they still do hope for ROI of some sort- even if not in cash.
Even more nebulous things, such as very low-overhead charities, serve a market- the market for people to feel generous, to avoid guilt, or to serve causes that the traditional free market overlooks. That so many charities are very high-overhead, or so bad at satisfying the ends they ostensibly aim for, seems to be a symptom that people don't care so much about the assuaging, as the fact that they have attempted to assuage.
So, are there ways to remove education from the capricious, short-term, short-sited nature of the modern free-market? Of course. State action, benevolent organizations, and other more attempts at far-sitedness are a good way to adjust the externalities of education. However, you simply cannot remove education from the market.
