It's a slippery slope when discussing subsidizing. Should students who are Lit majors subsidize expensive research labs? Or sports teams? College costs really can't be a la carte.
Obviously not... some schools might provide some of those things, but all schools will draw the line somewhere (I don't know of any schools that provide clothing)
Why is it anymore of a slippery slope to say "the college won't subsidize student parking" than "the college won't subsidize student clothing"?
Colleges that are more prestigious in a given field should be able to command a higher tuition, which helps pay for faculty, buildings, and equipment. But the higher rate needs to be justified by the school on their estimated costs and future earnings reports. Banks could take all of this into account when deciding whether to grant a loan to a student.
And yes, the school shouldn't be forcing students to pay for athletics, theatre, etc. Athletics often pay for themselves through advertising agreements and merch, so I don't see why anything should be taken from tuition for that (and I don't think it is most of the time).
So yes, education expenses should be ala carte as much as possible, and I think this (and ending federally backed student loans) would result in drastically reduced tuition prices on average as students see what value they're really getting.