First, an education is not a "tangible asset". The physical diploma might be a tangible asset but no one is borrowing tens of thousands of dollars to get a physical piece of paper. And "an education" is not what most people are bargaining for either. They are bargaining for "an education that results in a job", not an education for the sake of education.
In the law, there's a concept about "mistake" and another concept called "a meeting of the minds". These aren't particularly complicated terms but they underpin contracts and their validity. For the vast majority of the student population, they are bargaining for a degree that will lead to a job in the field of study. It doesn't matter if it's Jazz studies or Chemistry. They're looking for a job in that specific field, which the education is supposed to make possible. There are very few students studying chemistry or Jazz with no job expectations associated therewith. Someone would have to disregard the entire intersection of education and the job market to claim otherwise.
To ignore that a major part of the student's reason for entering the contract is to land a job is to ignore the essential element of one of the parties to that contract. Disdain for liberal arts degrees doesn't change that fact. And in enforceable contracts, if one party is aware that the other party has a belief that is not in accord with the facts but still enters into a contract at the expense of the mistaken party, that contract is usually deemed not valid.
And logically that makes sense. If I go to buy a car that I think can drive up a steep hill and the salesman, knowing that this is what I want the car for, sells me a car that he knows cannot go up a steep hill, we never contracted for the same thing. I contracted for one type of car, he sold me something else entirely. It doesn't matter that it's a car and it drives. It doesn't meet the purpose for which I entered the contract. I was mistaken as to the car's ability and the salesman knowingly took advantage of my mistake when I relied on him. In 99% of contracts, the mistaken party gets to walk away from the contract and the other party doesn't get to keep their money.
Yet because some people have a low opinion of liberal arts degrees they want to throw out the basic fairness of contracts for no discernible reason other than what I assume is spite.