More Funding, Same Struggle: Why Students Still Can’t Afford College

Art Credit: Sarai Navarro

California officials often point to increased funding for public universities as evidence that the state is investing in students. But for many students, especially students of color, those investments have failed to translate into real affordability. Despite millions in new funding for the University of California and California State University systems, the cost of attending college continues to rise, forcing students to rely on loans, multiple jobs and financial sacrifices just to stay enrolled. The gap between state spending and student reality raises a pressing question: if funding is increasing, why does college keep getting more expensive?

As of the most recent state budget, Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed a $350 million dollar increase to the budget, aligning with his promise to the UC and CSUs that he will increase their budget by 5% during the years 2022-2027. After his re-election, President Donald Trump has magnified affordability challenges for students. With the passing of H.R.1 (One Big Beautiful Bill,) federal loans have since been lessened, income repayment has been enacted and research funding, particularly in STEM, has been cut. While this budget is predicted to offset research and funding cuts made to the public university system under the Trump administration, the California government has failed to address the underlying systemic issues that cause economic hardship to students of color. 

Since the mid-2010s, tuition has steadily increased following years of state divestment after the Great Recession. In November 2025, the UC Board of Regents approved annual tuition increases tied to inflation, drawing criticism from students and sparking organizing efforts such as the Fund the UC Campaign, led by the University of California Students Association (UCSA). While tuition remains a central issue to the UCSA, as most recently discussed in their 2026 Students of Color Conference, non tuition costs make up over half of costs for students. Because UC campuses are located in some of the most expensive cities to live, these expenses force students of color to remain the minority, where over half of students of color take out some kind of loan to help pay their college expenses. This contributes to income disparity among students of color and their white counterparts. Even after receiving grant aid, debt still persists. Many students have to take on more than two jobs to keep attending higher education. 

Newsom’s funding proposal does little to reverse that trajectory. While the governor’s budget seems promising, those increases are largely designed to stabilize university operations, not eliminate tuition hikes. In practice, the funding primarily offsets research losses, deferred maintenance and administrative costs, leaving students to absorb the remaining gap.

As a result, the UC has turned costs into borrowing; in 2019 had a loan borrowing rate of 63% for Black students, and even higher rates for Hispanic and Native students. State officials often point to a roughly 10% decline in student borrowing as evidence that affordability is improving. However, this decline is not representative of the financial strain it puts on  the students. In the 2017-2018 academic year, nearly two-thirds of borrowers came from families earning $86,000 or less yearly. By 2024, nearly half of all borrowers came from households making under $56,000 annually. 

This is only a fraction of the costs that students face. Housing, food, transportation and much more account for most of the students' costs. This particularly affects UC students, as most of the UCs are in high-cost areas. Similarly, federal policy changes like “The One Big Beautiful Bill,” by the Trump administration, place student loan repayment plans at risk. This makes it harder for borrowers to manage or repay debt beginning July 1, 2026. As federal support erodes, students are pushed further toward private loans or long-term financial problems. This means that even as California increases funding for the UC system, students continue to shoulder the financial burden of higher education. Rather than addressing the structural causes of economic hardship, the state’s investment stabilizes institutions while leaving students of color exposed to rising costs and long-term debt.

Taken together, these trends reveal a deeper problem: California continues to treat higher education as a shared public good in rhetoric, but as an individual financial responsibility in practice. Newsom’s proposed funding increase may prevent deeper institutional cuts, but it does not reverse the decades of underfunding, or put a stop to the steady transfer of costs onto students. Governor Newsom’s proposed funding increase may prevent deeper institutional cuts, but it does little to reverse decades of underfunding or halt the steady transfer of costs onto students. By allowing tuition hikes tied to inflation and failing to regulate non-tuition expenses, the state implicitly accepts student debt as a normal feature of public higher education. This approach allows the state to sweep under the rug the faults of the public universities and place a new burden onto students. Particularly for students of color, who have lower representation in a higher education setting, by not only limiting the opportunities available to them in research, but allowing for college to cost more, the state is systematically reducing representation in higher education.

However, this is not the end. The federal SAVE repayment plan remains in effect, and the Department of Education has paused wage garnishment for student loan borrowers, offering temporary relief. However, these measures address repayment after the damage has already been done, not the rising costs that force students to borrow in the first place.

If California is serious about preserving access to public higher education, it must move beyond incremental funding increases and confront the structural shortfalls driving tuition hikes. Until then, students will continue to subsidize the UC system through debt, even as the state claims to invest in their future.