Still better than no education at all.
That would technically depend on what kind of trade-off a person is willing to make.
I have two cousins (sisters) that both took on massive debts in order to get Masters degrees in non-viable fields of study...non-viable in terms of actually landing a job in that field.
One got a masters in fashion merchandising, the other a masters in southwestern studies...keeping in mind...both live in northeast Ohio where I live. Not exactly the mecca of the fashion scene or museums that have a focus on southwestern studies.
...both are on the hook for something to the tune of $70k. Both spend a fair amount of time blaming "the system" for why they're in so much student loan debt, and both blame the GOP for why they can't get jobs in their field "if the GOP didn't cut funding for the arts... if the GOP got behind free education... yada yada yada"
Given that both of them are currently employed in jobs that could've been attained without the degree, I would say they'd be better off without that particular education.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of allocating public funding with the goal of making college available for free for anyone who wants to go...but I'm also in favor of putting reasonable limitations on what fields of studies can be pursued with said funding.
For example, if you want to use that funding in order to get a teaching degree, STEM, something in the medical field, finance, etc... great, we'll hook you up. However, if you want to get a Master's in Ceramics, Gender Studies, Philosophy...sorry, you'll need to wait until you have a real job, and and pay for that one out of pocket if you want to learn about that.