>students chose schools that offered these amenities regardless of how much that increased the price.
Not really. Consider the alternative: public universities are 100% free to students, who must in turn maintain their GPA and achieve minimum progress to remain enrolled. Some public funds are allocated to student services, even while we pare back subsidized loans and grants. Students who are price sensitive will go to a public uni, while others with different objectives and expectations are free to take on loans or self-fund attendance at their preferred private uni that better caters to their goals.
We don't do that because we don't want to create a two-tier college system where people without money all get shuffled into the same colleges. Under the current system it's already difficult for non-rich kids to get into a Harvard or a Yale, but at least it's possible.
Harvard and Yale both have need-blind admissions and generous tuition grants for median-and-lower-income families. Those policies are quite affordable for institutions with their endowments. Do you really think they'll stop admitting median-income students as soon as state schools return to low tuition?
Not really. Consider the alternative: public universities are 100% free to students, who must in turn maintain their GPA and achieve minimum progress to remain enrolled. Some public funds are allocated to student services, even while we pare back subsidized loans and grants. Students who are price sensitive will go to a public uni, while others with different objectives and expectations are free to take on loans or self-fund attendance at their preferred private uni that better caters to their goals.