People who were admitted to elite universities but for whichever random reasons ended up not going there ended up being as successful as their cohort peers who did attend elite institutions. What mattered was "good enough for Ivy League" not Ivy League education itself.
And when there is only room for say 10% of the population to succeed , making 100% of the population meet today's arbitrary selection criteria will only serve to usher in new selection criteria.
Many talented students can't afford or avoid debt in elite universities.
At the same time, less competitive students may get accepted because of donations/connections/preparatory schools.
That means their family is rich and/or has powerful connections. Thus they will be more likely to succeed after graduation.
That's actually very very rare. Elite universities will give grants which cover the vast majority of costs for low-income students.
There's a reason the average indebtedness at graduation for Ivies is only a few thousand dollars (and that's not even including the majority who have no debt).
Also the education bubble is economically sustainable if and only if the population is selected to be elite ivies only. A nation where nobody makes over $10/hr unless they're in the ivy aristocracy (therefore attending for free with substantial scholarships and aid) doesn't mix well with $60K/yr tuition for a non-elite school.