A note to my fellow UC Davis students:
With the November 3 midterm elections approaching, I'd like to encourage everyone eligible to vote to take a closer look at the federal education policies affecting us and our futures.
This isn't about promoting one political party over another. It's about understanding how government decisions affect our opportunities to pursue higher education.
Under legislation signed by the Trump administration in 2025, the federal Grad PLUS loan program was eliminated for most new borrowers beginning July 1, 2026. Most graduate students are now limited to $20,500 in federal loans annually, with certain exceptions for existing borrowers.
This administration argues that restricting federal borrowing will pressure universities to lower tuition and reduce unnecessary spending.
But here's my question:
If the government wants universities to reduce tuition, shouldn't it first establish mechanisms that produce meaningful tuition reductions before withdrawing borrowing options from students who cannot otherwise afford to attend?
Tuition and living expenses remain extraordinarily high. Universities aren't automatically lowering their prices simply because students have lost access to federal borrowing.
Financial hardship can completely change a student's educational opportunities, and I know firsthand how difficult it can be to pursue an education when financial circumstances are uncertain. Not everyone has family financial support, substantial savings, excellent credit, or someone willing to cosign a private loan. I don't. Being academically qualified (even if excellent) doesn't necessarily mean being financially capable of attending.
And I know I'm far from the only student facing these realities.
Research examining the new borrowing limits suggests that a substantial share of graduate borrowers have historically depended on federal loans exceeding the newly established limits. Students without access to alternative financing may face particularly difficult choices.
So, this brings me to next question:
If the objective is to make higher education more affordable, what measurable protections are in place to ensure that financially disadvantaged students can still attend while institutions are being pressured to lower prices?
Because without those protections, students bear the immediate consequences of a policy whose eventual results remain uncertain.
Universities may or may not adjust their prices. WE, the students, however, must adjust our finances immediately.
I understand the importance of preventing excessive student debt. But reducing access to borrowing is not the same as reducing the cost of education.
And if fewer students can afford to attend graduate school, have we actually made education more affordable, or have we simply made it less accessible?
These are questions worth asking regardless of political affiliation.
To my fellow UC Davis students: Please research the policies, question the promises, examine the consequences, and vote according to your own informed judgment.
Our educational futures deserve more than assumptions that everything will eventually work itself out.
EDIT: I'm genuinely curious what other Aggies think about this:
If federal student loan limits decrease, but tuition and other living expenses don't, who is supposed to cover the difference?
And for those who support these new borrowing restrictions: What specific measures would you propose to ensure that students from lower-income backgrounds aren't priced out of graduate education?
Sources: