The language I'm about to use pains me, but this is an extremely privileged take, or at least naive take, on what these loans do. Removing them will hurt about about a generation of students from the very low to the upper middle class set until the academic<>employment market adjusts. What do I mean?
A simple, pragmatic fact is degree from a name-school, vs. a no-name school, is a differentiator to a student who knows what they're doing. This is especially true with grad schools where it's professionally-focused on the outcome. NYU Law vs. CUNY Law. UMass Dartmouth CS vs. BU CS. You're buying a network and a door opener with the latter. One resume gets you an informational interview, a priv'd coop/internship, an alumni network and so on, and the other has an uphill battle. For many underpriv'd students, that network-buy is life changing. I wish it wasn't the case, but pretending that it isn't is damaging. This is just the way of things at the moment.
By getting rid of fed-sub'd loans, you: - take away motive-neutral funding route for your cheap but no-name undergrad -> good grad school -> good new career - open only profit-motive funding routes from private loan companies, which.... this never works out well for consumers. - open this priv'd route of good schools to increasingly only the elite.
I'd agree with the point that a cheap state school for undergrad, a "known" school for grad school funded by however one can get it funded makes more financial<>career sense, but that nuance didn't exist in your argument.