The parking lot of UC Riverside is filled with the cars of students who commute. Credit: Omisha Sangani
As we enter another year of delays and confusion surrounding FAFSA, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, it is crucial to revisit the challenging financial situation many college students face today.
In addition to tuition, students face additional expenses such as on-campus housing, meal plans, and indirect costs not directly paid to their college/university. Indirect costs include books, transportation, off-campus housing, and a computer. For California students living off-campus, indirect costs amount to roughly $21,000 a year (even higher for students living on their own).
Considering costs, many students choose to commute instead of staying on campus due to affordability, the ability to live with family (which may involve caretaking responsibilities), or other obligations at home. For instance, 60% of UC students, 86% of CSU students, and 85% of college students nationwide commute to campus.
The 3E Study is currently gathering economic, educational, and health data from students at public CSU and UC campuses in California over time. Participants were asked about their experiences during the past school year and their most satisfying and disappointing moments at their institutions.
One clear trend from the results is that attending these schools is expensive, and commuter students are facing challenges.
Many students in the study mentioned having to commute over an hour each way to school daily. The difficulties of their commute often hinder their academic and social development during a crucial period in their lives.
Participant responses paint a vivid picture:
“I expect to be exhausted as classes end every day. My long commute (average 100 minutes one-way) has had a significant impact on my time management, preventing me from being more involved on campus,” one student said.
Other commuting students mentioned that “it’s harder to make friends” and “I work part-time and commute three hours a day for school.”
Commuting exacerbates unequal access to education due to affordability issues. When low- and middle-income students lack affordable housing options on or near campus, have numerous expenses preventing on-campus housing, or are balancing caregiving responsibilities, their living options are limited regardless of distance from campus.
Living at home and commuting introduces new financial stressors. Many commuter students struggle to afford gas. While living at home may be cheaper than staying on campus, the cost of gas adds up quickly.
One student who commutes from Los Angeles to Riverside (roughly 55 miles) for school stated, “The lack of money is a constant limitation … gas is now a necessity for me to pursue higher education.”
Enhancing affordable options and resources for students is crucial to reducing these barriers to college access. Some institutions are creating specialized programs and resources for commuters, such as commuter centers with dedicated facilities like fridges or computers, to help students feel supported and connected during their college experience.
Colleges should collaborate with local transit agencies to provide free public transportation to all students, a program already in place at many California colleges. When allocating financial aid, schools should consider commuting costs as part of the attendance expenses for students not living on campus. Implementing grant programs to reduce tuition costs for commuter students allows them to allocate savings towards gas and car expenses.
Commuter students across the state face high tuition and indirect costs. Better support for commuting expenses will help ensure equal opportunities for all students to access a college education.
Isabella Yalif is an undergraduate student in economics and sociology at Vanderbilt University.
Lindsay Hoyt is an associate professor of applied developmental psychology at Fordham University and co-leads the 3E study.
Alison Cohen is an assistant professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California San Francisco and co-leads the 3E study.
The views expressed in this commentary are those of the authors. EdSource welcomes diverse perspectives in commentaries. If you wish to submit a commentary, please refer to our guidelines and contact us.