The Universities minister wants fewer HE students who are first-generation to university. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/jul/01/minister-lambasts-uk-universities-policy-for-letting-down-students

The argument goes: universities ‘dumb down’ courses to attract more students from lower-income backgrounds. But those courses do not improve life chances for people from lower-income backgrounds & leave them burdened with debt.

Let’s go through this backwards. Student debt is caused by high tuition fees. These were introduced by the government, not by universities.
There are alternatives.

Research shows that HE does improve life chances of people from lower-income backgrounds.

The notion of ‘dumbing down’ is offensive, as it implies that students from non-academic backgrounds were, well, ‘dumb’.

Having said these things, there is nothing wrong with asking questions about courses with high drop-out rates. The answer may be that there is something wrong with some courses. The answer may be that there is too much economic pressure on students.

A great course with a good track record in widening participation may have a higher drop-out rate because students from lower-income households find it more difficult to stay in HEI in an economic crisis than students with family who can support them financially.

And what happened to the Tory notion that the Higher Education market will regulate itself? First you give us the OfS to protect customer (student) interests. Then you tell us that these customers (students) are not bright enough to make the right choices?

By all means, watch over universities’ marketing claims and delivery like hawks.
Just don’t start being paternalistic towards people from diverse & low-income backgrounds.
With the right information they will make the right decisions.

PS
If you make graduate earnings the key measure of the value of a university course or even higher education, you have missed the point of education.