You also suggest there would be fraud. A further two years of loans, added to at least three years of them in higher education, would saddle young people with an even greater debt. If education eventually does bring financial bounties, then the recipient will in any case be paying more back to society in taxes. Your third point is equally demeaning of the poor. I do not share this view of an unwashed peasantry, likely to spoil a nice party if allowed through the door.
Education is far too important to be the exclusive domain of the few.
The entry fee to our rapidly changing society, where the unskilled and under-educated are increasingly vulnerable, has gone up. A humane and far-sighted society offers all children the chance to acquire the knowledge and skills that they will need. Beveridge rejected it, and economists now recognise that means tests create dependency traps, so that the people on the lowest incomes pay high marginal rates of tax. Where benefits are universal, such as child benefit, there is little room for fraud. You do not address my second argument.