To the editor,
In recent discussions surrounding student success in higher education, institutional focus has increasingly turned toward the financial pressures that undermine undergraduate degree completion. A recent analysis, “4 Lessons on Lower-Income Student Success,” by Joshua Bay, effectively highlights how financial strain creates significant barriers for undergraduates and outlines tangible ways colleges and universities can better support these vulnerable populations. However, as scholars and administrators continue to examine the multifaceted nature of student retention and well-being, a critical area of higher education remains largely overlooked: the combined financial and structural challenges confronting graduate students. This is particularly true for individuals enrolled in advanced academic and professional programs characterized by limited assistantship opportunities, restricted funding pools, and rigid institutional demands.
Having navigated undergraduate education while experiencing acute poverty, and now contributing professionally to ongoing conversations about improving college students’ financial well-being, I found Bay’s analysis both timely and profoundly important. Yet, my firsthand experience as a graduate student has revealed another deeply entrenched gap in educational support systems. While much of the national conversation centers on undergraduate access and affordability, graduate programs operate under a different set of assumptions—assumptions that frequently fail to account for the economic realities of students from lower-income backgrounds.
The Everyday Realities of Graduate Financial Strain
Graduate students routinely struggle with a pervasive array of economic hardships, including food and housing insecurity, inadequate health care coverage, prohibitive transportation costs, and other essential basic living expenses. These burdens must be managed while simultaneously navigating intensely demanding academic programs that intentionally or unintentionally leave little to no time for gainful, paid employment.
As a master of social work student, my own daily routine encapsulates this exhausting balancing act. I am currently managing a full-time course load, fulfilling the requirements of an unpaid, mandatory practicum internship, and enduring grueling commutes of up to 90 minutes each way to both my university campus and my assigned practicum placement. Despite utilizing federal student loans that manage to cover tuition and mandatory institutional fees—leaving little to nothing else for day-to-day survival—these funds are fundamentally insufficient. Consequently, I have been forced to take on an additional part-time job that barely covers the rising costs of transportation and basic groceries.
This lifestyle breeds a state of chronic physical and psychological exhaustion. Crucially, these trials are not simply personal challenges or individual inconveniences to be overcome through sheer willpower. Instead, they reflect a deeper, systemic educational structure that routinely assumes students possess outside wealth and can afford to prioritize their academic pursuits over paid work. For graduate students who are forced to make impossible choices on a weekly or daily basis—such as choosing between attending a mandatory class, affording the gas required to reach campus, or working extra hours to cover basic survival expenses—institutional emergency aid may occasionally offer some temporary, stopgap relief. However, the administrative hurdles required to secure such aid, which often involve navigating additional applications and extensive paperwork, create yet another draining burden for students who are already struggling just to stay afloat.
Expanding the Framework for Institutional Support
Colleges and universities must build upon the foundational recommendations outlined by Joshua Bay by directly addressing a fifth, critical issue: the comprehensive re-evaluation of graduate program structures. While my personal experiences and observations are drawn specifically from the field of social work education, this broader concern extends far beyond a single discipline, resonating deeply within accredited graduate programs across a wide array of academic and professional fields. The overarching goal of such a re-evaluation is not to lower academic standards, compromise intellectual rigor, or water down professional preparation. Rather, the objective is to ensure that graduate programs are structured and delivered in ways that are educationally effective, genuinely equitable, and economically sustainable for all students, regardless of their financial starting point.
Accreditation standards established by external bodies certainly dictate fundamental educational requirements and competencies, but individual institutions and their faculty members retain ultimate responsibility for how those standards are implemented on the ground. This operational flexibility includes critically evaluating the volume, pacing, and sequencing of coursework and major assignments. Furthermore, faculty can coordinate deadlines and course content more thoughtfully to reduce repetitive academic overlap and eliminate unnecessary textbook costs. Institutions must also reconsider whether the cumulative demands of a traditional two-year graduate program are realistic or humane for students who must simultaneously work demanding jobs to support themselves in the present economic climate.
The Unpaid Practicum Crisis
Programs that mandate internships or field placements as a condition of graduation, such as social work, counseling, and education, must closely examine the immense financial and logistical burdens imposed by these unpaid practicum placements. These burdens are not abstract; they manifest as tangible expenses, including the direct costs of transportation, parking, professional attire, and lengthy, daily commutes that eat away at hours that could otherwise be used for rest or employment.
Re-evaluating these program structures does not mean compromising the educational rigor that prepares students for complex professional fields. However, it does mean ensuring that the methods by which graduate students are expected to meet those rigorous standards are intentional, effective, and practically attainable for students across all economic circumstances.
Higher education cannot continue to promise socioeconomic mobility and professional opportunity while structuring degree completion around the antiquated and classist assumption that all students have a reliable safety net of external financial support. If graduate programs truly want students from lower-income backgrounds to succeed, graduate, and go on to serve their communities—especially in vital helping fields like social work—they must make education sustainable throughout the entire duration of the degree, rather than merely accessible at the point of admission.
Naomi Hill is an M.S.W. candidate at the University of Georgia School of Social Work.
