Degree Justification

I have helped my fiancee study for school on numerous occasions, and I keep coming across the same theme. It seems that writers of anthropology, human rights, and history articles are desperately trying to justify their expensive degrees with the language they use. As an example, in an article she was reading in preparation for tomorrow's midterm, the following sentence was found:

"Precisely because secular Time was its presupposition, logically speaking, or its signified, in semiotic parlance, the new discourse had (with exceptions to be mentioned later) no need to thematize Time."

Are you kidding me? I like the philosophy that a master of a particular subject can explain complex ideas with simple words and language that even a child could understand. In other words, you are probably not an expert at anything unless you can get somebody with no experience in the subject to understand it very quickly.

I am certainly no wizard of words, no Ernest Hemingway. However, these types of papers are ridiculous. If the purpose of a class or an article is to introduce new ideas to somebody, teach a student a new concept, then it is the most inefficient method I have ever seen. With this type of language, no wonder the cost of education is increasing. An entire class on "big words" is necessary before you even begin to approach the ultimate subject matter.

I am trying to find other reasons for why this is so common. Beyond justifying their degrees...maybe the authors truly do not have a grasp of the subject matter they discuss? Maybe it is not their fault? They simply are passing on the information that they were taught, so the only way they understand it is via the complex language originally presented to them?

This began as a rant, but now I am curious. I would like to explore this further...maybe it is a representation of larger issues?