It's kind of awesome to see this coming out of MIT.
Assuming there are at least some things that require a minimum effort that is uncomfortable before allowing you to see their benefits, you will discover more guided by qualified people and well-designed curricula than on your own.
Then, there are the people: from my experience especially with Ivy-League faculty, these schools seem to do something right. Remember that one teacher from school that really got you into (reading shakespeare/track/organic chemistry)? Yeah, they aren't all like that, but a rather significant number seems to be.
Perhaps, but sitting in the lecture hall isn't the only way you can get thorough instruction from professionals. Books exist, and they don't suffer from the same monetary, timing, and pacing issues that classrooms do.
The primary historical disadvantage of books- that they weren't interactive and you therefore couldn't get help if stuck- is no longer an issue with the internet. It's possible that the internet is too disorganized and low-quality to be one's primary teacher, but its amazing supplementary value makes other media tenable.
Those are my anecdotal opinions, anyway. But I'm curious, what do you think physical teachers have to offer that Books/Online Courses/Podcasts/Whatever + The Internet don't?
Obviously that's more of a me issue than an issue inherent to self-learning, but many of us have me issues.
If you're not the type of person who would benefit from structure and community- the value proposition clearly doesn't make sense. Even if you would benefit from those things- the value proposition isnt clear at all- its tremendously expensive.