What is so wrong with branding in higher education?

I think you just mean, by and large, vocational training; and, yes, there should be more of it. It's possible what you have in mind is some hybrid - half of courses being more of the type that are being delivered now, and have vocational, but that is unstable, it will devolve into vocational training once the students realize (and push for) what 'counts'.

This piece of ignorant self-promotion makes no logical or factual sense. None. Did Conde Nast pay for its publication, too?

Yes, who cares about snobby things like critical thinking, well-roundedness, or quality? The core function of universities is to sell job certificates. If corporate branding and sponsorship increases the number of job certificates we can sell, then it's obviously a good thing that is aligned with our core function. The best thing about this mass manufacture of job certificates is the big brands you mention get a steady stream of naive, competent graduates with depressed salary expectations. If they can keep hiring eager, replaceable young engineers at half the salary of someone ten years' older (or less), they're essentially getting a large, regular public subsidy. It's a win-win both for the higher education sector and private industry.

This appears to be an advert. All UK universities are acutely aware of branding, some are better at it than others. All institutions i have been associated with have fallen over themselves to associate with credible employers. No lip curling there!