Various European and Scand. models (I like Denmark's especially) would be ideal by a large margin, but that's very unlikely to happen in the US, so this at least attempts to deal with the problem in a way that might actually happen.
The advantages of this over the current system could and should be:
- Your family income is not considered, so you never wind up in the "donut hole" where they make too much to allow you to get much in terms of loans, but too little to get you full-rides for having tiny income.
- Your own savings shouldn't/couldn't be considered, so if you've managed to save up some money (emergency fund, etc.) as an adult (because we need our personal safety nets in the US) it doesn't vanish in a semester. With the current system, the amount you're given is dependent on your own savings as well as income. Everything is considered. That's a huge risk.
- The money is guaranteed to be there when you need it. Not subject to shifting political winds or anyone's variable income. No yearly reapplication.
- The amounts calculated with the current system are sometimes laughably low, particularly when it comes to housing costs. You should be able to ask for what you need based on actual extant reality.
For the investors, it could potentially be very lucrative. Most of the students would likely go on to make decent money and so you'd get paid back plus extra, but in cases where students hit it big, you could make a windfall (I'm sure Larry Ellison's school wouldn't mind 10%/year of his income.)
As someone who had to leave home as a teenager and has had zero family support (but would still love to go to NYU or Columbia: https://medium.com/@opirmusic/why-software-developers-should...) - if I could take out $300k or so for 10% income for 30 years, I would do it in a second. They'd probably wind up with 450k or so.