One simple trick . . .

From PLUS or Minus? The Effect of Graduate School Loans on Access, Attainment, and Prices by Sandra E. Black, Lesley J. Turner, and Jeffrey T. Denning.  From the Abstract:

In 2006, the federal government effectively uncapped student borrowing for graduate programs with the introduction of the Graduate PLUS loan program. Access to additional federal loans increased graduate students’ borrowing and shifted the composition of their loans from private to federal debt. However, the increase in borrowing limits did not improve access to existing programs overall or for underrepresented groups. Nor did access to additional loan aid result in significant increase in constrained students’ persistence or degree receipt. We document that among programs in which a larger share of graduate students had exhausted their annual federal loan eligibility before the policy change—and thus were more exposed to the expansion in access to credit—federal borrowing and prices increased.

Commenting on the paper, Noah Smith notes in At least five interesting things to start your week (#2), that the program did not increase enrollment, nor did it increase graduation rates.  However:

The increased borrowing did have one big effect (other than making students more indebted). It increased tuition. In fact, it increased tuition by pretty much exactly the same amount that borrowing increased.  

[snip]

This should be a huge wake-up call for people who think the U.S. government should lend more to students. It supports the theory that all government loans do is to drive students deeper into debt and push up the price of education, without helping more disadvantaged Americans get degrees. If this research is correct, these loans are basically just draining money from disadvantaged students’ futures, and putting it directly into the pockets of educational institutions. That’s not something our government ought to be doing.

This is consistent with most other research I have seen, concluding that the loans do not increase graduation rates and that they do cause constricting debt burdens among many students, especially those who do not graduate with a degree.  The principal finding I routinely see is that the federal education loan programs function as a massive and direct subsidy of universities by the government and taxpayers and that most of that subsidy goes into non-educational activities (overwhelmingly into increased administration.)  

This prompts an idea.  The clerisy of the United States, a small population of perhaps 5%, are notable for their divergent from the great majority of Americans in terms of their goals, values, ethics, and ideological priorities.  The clerisy are cultivated through a tight epistemic ecosystem of mainstream media, academia (K-12 and tertiary), NGOs, and government bureaucracy.

Within this ecosystem, academia plays a critical role in surfacing and sustaining otherwise untenable ideas and notions (critical race theory, social justice, socialism, marxism, anthropogenic global warming, intersectionality, income inequality, the importance of non-market central planning, Diversity Equity Inclusion, Environmental Social Governance, etc..)

If we got rid of the subsidization of academia, a subsidization via loans which does not accomplish an expansion of access to education by the underprivileged or otherwise and which needlessly harms the financial prospects of a significant portion of recipients, might we not significantly deflate the oversupply of epistemic nonsense which is causing so much polarization and needless panic?

What might follow were we to abolish the ineffective loan program?  Possibly:

A 50% reduction in budgets and employment at universities, with a large portion of the reduction concentrated in the administrative burden of universities.

A refocusing of universities back to knowledge generation and transmission rather than ideological advocacy.

Since most of the untenable ideas and notions (see above) arising from universities are primarily mechanisms for driving needless panic, there would be a reduction in public fear-mongering, a reduction in needless and ineffective government interventions on issues which are not real, and a material improvement in government effectiveness.

A reduction in the population who have low value or non-value adding degrees which keep them out of more traditional labor activities but which do no position them for white collar success.

A dramatic reduction in political polarization.

A further shrinkage in mainstream media.  Without the constant panic porn from academia, there would be less "news" screaming for attention.

I would not want to estimate odds on any one, or all, of those outcomes but directionally I suspect most of them might be correct.

To improve the effectiveness of government (and associated trust), to reduce political polarization, to refocus concentrate academia on knowledge generation and transmission, to refocus mainstream media on real news reporting rather than panic porn, to improve the lives of students (same outcomes, no debt burden), and to increase the volume and quality of the labor force (fewer people educated out of the labor force), a reduction in government borrowing and a reduction in both government and personal debt - all that sounds like great outcomes.  And all we need to do is cancel government education loan programs.

Sounds compelling.