- Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
The Trump administration’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act puts so many people at risk of losing their health insurance and food assistance, it’s hard to focus on other fires set by the new law. And yet — there’s one crucial conflagration I hope the state of California will fight.
The budget bill contains multiple changes in federal student loan programs that will make it harder for many students to even think about getting an undergraduate degree at the University of California or at Cal State. Eligibility for Pell Grants and other loans and grants, the way repayment works, and annual and lifetime limits on borrowing by students and their parents (via Parent PLUS loans) are all changing.
But let me narrow my focus to students enrolling in law, medical, pharmacy or other professional schools, the segment of the student “market” I’m most familiar with because of my career as a professor at UC Law San Francisco.
Amid a federal overhaul of student loan plans, many borrowers have been left wondering what it means for their hopes of loan forgiveness.
When I started teaching, the citizens of California very generously supported professional training. I recall that tuition at UC Law (then UC Hastings) was — well, there was no tuition, just fees.
But with dramatically reduced public support over the years, the costs have gone up and up. Tuition and required fees alone at UC Law SF are about $60,000 a year. At medical, dental or pharmacy school? In the $50,000 to $60,000 range as well. And that’s without food, housing and other expenses of daily living. (For perspective, UC’s tuition costs are still less expensive than private schools: At Stanford Law School tuition will set you back about $77,000 a year and at Stanford School of Medicine, $67,000.)
Under the OBBBA, professional-school students will no longer be able to get more than $50,000 a year (up to $200,000 total for a degree) in federal student loans. That leaves a significant gap in annual tuition and fees, and offers no help on the additional costs — UC calculates the total cost for one year of dental school at $104,000.
Five years ago, UC approved a plan to lock in tuition rates for each undergraduate cohort through 2026. The plan may allow greater tuition increases if it’s renewed this fall.
There are private loans available. But federal student loans have more flexibility, particularly in repayment plans, and students need neither a strong credit history nor a co-signer to get them. The students who would need to borrow the most are the least likely to have a strong credit history or a family member who would be an acceptable co-signer for a private loan. And private loan rates are almost always higher than the government’s.
So just as the tax provisions in this newly passed law make the rich richer, I fear the student loan provisions will be adequate for the better off but prevent many working-class young people from obtaining professional degrees. So much for policies that support the American dream.
California could control this fire through its own student loan program, adding funding to fill the gap created by the new federal rules. One option: Create an additional program under the auspices of the California Student Aid Commission, whose current aid programs are limited in scope. It’s true that the state budget is already stretched thin — but this is about loans, so the money will, for the most part, be returned with interest.
Commentary: University of California was a beacon of opportunity. What went wrong and how to fix it
My husband’s family came to California in large part because of its promising college system. Now we’re one of many praying for a single acceptance. What went wrong?
Do we need to be helping future professionals get an education? Absolutely!
As our population ages, the demands for health professionals are only increasing. Given the long trajectory of medical, nursing and pharmacy students’ education, we can’t wait for another administration to come into office and fix the loan situation. We should prevent a reduction in the numbers of practitioners graduated now. We already have shortages of health professionals: Have you tried recently to find a primary care physician or pediatrician who is taking new patients? And the nurse shortage is a major problem — UC San Francisco estimates the state is short 36,000 nurses.
As for lawyers, if you doubt the need for more, consider “the justice gap.” Facing eviction? Have problems with an employer? Unable to access public benefits? Suffering domestic violence? There are not nearly enough legal aid lawyers to help, leaving many at a great disadvantage.
There are valid alternatives to getting a four-year degree, but for the U.S. to thrive and for students to be all they can be, the emphasis on college should remain.
And the young people most likely to find the new federal loan rules a barrier to law school are also likely to best understand the need for more lawyers in public interest and public service jobs, and perhaps the most likely to aspire to such jobs. The state has had a loan repayment program for those who practice public interest law. In addition to bolstering federal student loans with state loans, California could reinvigorate and expand the repayment program to cover a greater variety of jobs and to repay more than the $11,000 limit.
While the federal government is acting to burn things down, our state should intervene to build things up, including the talent pool we need for the decades ahead.
Marsha Cohen, emerita professor of law at UC Law San Francisco, twice served as the school’s dean of admissions, which included supervising its financial aid program.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The One Big Beautiful Bill Act significantly restricts borrowing options for professional students, capping annual loans at $50,000 (up to $200,000 total) for laws, medicine, and related fields, creating gaps between federal aid and actual costs at institutions like UC law or medical schools[1][4].
- Financial barriers for low-income students could widen, as reliance on private loans may require strong credit or cosigners, disproportionately affecting working-class applicants aiming for careers in public service[1][6].
- State intervention is proposed as a solution, such as expanding California’s student aid programs or enhancing loan repayment initiatives to address shortages in healthcare and legal professionals[6].
Different views on the topic
- Proponents argue the reforms promote fiscal responsibility, citing the new lifetime borrowing limits ($100,000 for most graduate students) and elimination of Graduate PLUS Loans as measures to prevent overborrowing and reduce federal debt[1][5].
- Simplified repayment options—reducing plans to a standard and income-driven system—may help borrowers navigate the loan system more effectively, though critics warn of extended repayment periods[2][3].
- Focus on institutional accountability through the RISE Committee ensures colleges prioritize post-graduation outcomes, addressing concerns about redistributed taxpayer burdens and mismatched educational priorities[3][5].
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
In this episode, we bring you the update on how an Altadena resident and her neighborhood are coming along, plus a re-run of the two-part series we did on the Poppyfields people back in June.
California once bet big on offshore wind to help power its clean-energy future, but the Trump administration is now paying developers billions to walk away from their projects. As California’s remaining offshore-wind leases hang in the balance, the state is fighting back in court.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
