Education is very different than sales. I don't know what the solution is, especially when measuring "learning" itself is very difficult if not impossible.
I've seen the result of this. The salesperson oversells, and the engineering team death marches to attempt to build what the salesperson has already received their commission for.
Incentives are tricky.
The logical outcome is that the biggest parasites will look to attach themselves to the biggest flows of money with low levels of elasticity relative to their input.
And they will do whatever they can through side-channel methods and attacks, whether it be destructive to other employees or the company itself, to stop others getting into the position, including navigating/manipulating the hierarchy to maximize flows through them.
Half of finance/executive remuneration is literally built around that strategy (manage big flows of money unrelated to your personal input), and I'd guess a huge number of toxic companies and employees are directly attributable to people who believe they've successfully implemented that incentive scheme.
That's ridiculous. Math, science, vocabulary, history, and reading comprehension can all be tested effectively, with little risk of "gaming" it.
(at least at the level of a tpyical high scholl curriculum)
It is difficult to game your way to an A without knowing a fair amount of the material, but it's definitely possible to get a passing grade and possibly as high as a B. And students are often very eager to try to claw as much partial credit on a test as possible.
My wife teaches at a 4-year state school and tells me that one of her students did just that, she looked for plausible keywords but then didn't know what to do next, this was chemistry, not math.
Reading comprehension is harder to game.
> she looked for plausible keywords but then didn't know what to do next
That doesn't sound like she arrived at the right result.