Do we, as a society want to let the free market decide what education is valuable and what education is not? Giving lenders a lifetime claim on the maximum wag

Do we, as a society want to let the free market decide what education is valuable and what education is not? Giving lenders a lifetime claim on the maximum wage garnishment is undeniably one of the most backwards ways to decide we don't want to let them pick which educations to fund. But if we want lenders to decide what educations are worth funding, and incentivize them to do so, what factors can they consider? You might find, for instance, that women get denied such loans more often - perhaps because of the degrees they pursue, or perhaps because they tend to get paid less. Is that fair? Again saddling somebody with a lifetime of debt (that will never, realistically, get repaid) because of an idealistic choice they made as a teenager feels like one of the most idiotic solutions possible to this problem. It encourages constant tuition creep because there's always more money to throw at it. But there is a lot of risk in letting a small cabal of lenders (as would inevitably emerge if it hasn't already) decide exactly who gets to have what educations.