Yes. There is good reason.
-The situation with the banks was very dangerous for the population at large and needed a very quick and decisive solution. The government did a number of things to stop the meltdown and each of these measures would need to be looked at individually. When you say "give rich bankers sub market loans" it would be necessary to be more precise, what you mean.
First of all, the owners of banks like Citi lost practically their complete stake and the government got most of its investment back if it did not actually make a gain. The low interest rates being given now, are really too low. The main beneficiary is the US government, because it pays too little on its multi-trillion Dollar debt. The banks participate in this, because the theory is that increasing rates would slow economic growth, which it very probably would. This would mean fewer jobs, so the logic goes. And it is probably true that we would have more unemployed than we have, had the rates gone up a year or two ago.
-Studying is an essentially private with positive external effects. The external effects a very important and require a mechanism by which they can be attained. Scholarships for excellent students are good. If a student wants to study, but is not good at learning can do that with his own money loaned or other. This puts a break on inefficient investment in professions that will find no employment.
If the optimum level of external effect is not reached, then the government can make that transparent and an amount of money available to study the subjects from which the effects derive. If the student does not finish successfully, he should pay back the grant.
PS: But who do you mean by "rich bankers"?