Better yet, solve two birds with one stone. Pass a law that caps the maximum percentage of a person's income that can be paid to college loan (minimum) payments. Just like that you would have stopped the primary source of collegiate tuition inflation (the fact that students believe they need college to enter the workplace, but cannot discharge loans due to bankruptcy, and loans are guaranteed by the gov). And you would have created a free-market solution tying actual college value added to collegiate tuition prices.

Its not a flawless proposition. But it does mean that those students who spend years and go heavily into debt pursuing higher education wouldn't then be force to compete only for the highest paying jobs that will cover their loans. Upset that the greatest minds in our generation work in advertising? Wondering why more highly education people aren't willing to take teaching positions or devote themselves to societal service? Here's your fix.

Your solution is called income based repayment, and already exists - the US has about a dozen different IBR / PAYE (Pay As You Earn) plans. Generally speaking, people with student loan debt can opt into them. Obama's version from his first term even has debt forgiveness for those who have made 120 monthly payments while working for a nonprofit / government (PSLF - public service loan forgiveness). Though the Devos Education department was running the show when those applications started coming in, and they rejected something like 98% of them out of some combination of malice and incompetence.

My favorite silver bullet solution for the mounting debt and affordability crisis is to allow student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy, and force colleges and universities to carry some substantial amount (20-30%) of the debt load they force their students to take on.

It has all kinds of negative consequences for admission of at-risk / low-income students at risk-averse institutions, but it does solve some of the game theoretical problems with rising tuition costs.

This is also ignoring the significant credit that having a "brand" name school as well as alumni network, like those in the Ivy League, has on one's job prospects. A significant portion of the value of one's graduation from these institutions is an affiliation with their name, which is more valuable than those of various (especially mid-tier) state schools.

What you're describing wouldn't work because the interactions between the students would influence the things you're measuring. Students don't exist in a vacuum. It would only be possible if the school's students were entirely random.

Not to mention that as you go lower in rank, yes, there are fewer good students. This is pretty much inherently true (not to say that lower ranked schools don't have good students, which is not true at all, but as a percentage yes it will decrease drastically).