No. As this article clearly shows, and as was the case with the subprime lenders, many of the originators and the servicers acted illegally, it's not a simple argument about 'what I agreed to'. There are two parties to that agreement, and if anyone acts contrary to the contract, the other party has a right to respond, and not be morally required to follow through on their end of the agreement. In fact, they are morally required to respond to those changes by the people on the other side of the negotiating table.
Lastly, these loans were not just provided for fun. They were provided to the students with the promise of higher income. If that doesn't happen, and the jobs and income are not there to support it, that promise becomes false, and both parties to the agreement have to face the consequences, not just the student.