Impact of the “GI Bills” on the Educational Level of the Male Population

This paper is an attempt to evaluate the effects of the post-war educational rehabilitation programs for veterans ("GI Bills") on the educational composition of the male population of the United States. Various sources of statistical data are integrated to produce estimates of the effects. The analysis leads to the conclusion that, even if the benefits of the GI education and training programs had not been available, the sharply rising trend in the formal educational level of the male population observed before the war would have continued at substantially the same general level. The GI programs are viewed primarily as responses to the growing demand for formal education in a society where social organization and value complexes were undergoing change. A t the end of World War II, and again after the Korean Conflict, the United States government underwrote largescale rehabilitation programs, familiarly known as the "GI Bill of Rights," which were designed to provide the men whose lives were interrupted by military service with, among other thiings, support to begin or continue their formal education or vocational training. These programs are generally regarded as successful, but the impact which they have had on our society has not been measured. Hence, as recently as March 1960, the Deputy Administrator of Veterans' Affairs in 'Waslhington wrote: "We have still to evaluate the pervasive effects of this program on the general level of education, the Nation's skilled manpower resources, our national security, our productivity and the gross national product."' This paper is an attempt to evaluate the effect of the postwar educational training of veterans, particularly that under the "GI Bills," on the educational composition of the male population. The following questions will be explored: (1) How much of the formal educational attainment of the male population can * Revision of paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Sociological Society, Miami Beach, Florida, April 6, 1961. 1 Bradford Morse, "The Veteran and his Education," Higher Education 16: 7 (March 1960), p. 3. This content downloaded from 207.46.13.187 on Sun, 15 May 2016 04:51:55 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms IMPACT OF THE GI BILLS 27 be attributed to sclhooling obtained by veterans after tbey left tlhe military service? (2) How much of tbe veterans' postwar educational attainmient was obtained under the GI Bill programs, and lbow miucli of that education might not have been attained if it were not for those programs ? (3) Wblat are the regional patterns in the educational effects of the GI Bills, anid wlhat impact did the programs have on regional differentials in education? Answers to these questions will bave to be presented in the form of crude estimates. Altlhougb we have nmuch information about the education of veterans, the kinds of data available do not permit dlirect answers to the questions raised. Various sources of data will have to be combined, and a number of assumptions will have to be made, but it should be possible to arrive at some reliable general conclusions. Among the major sources which are to be used are, first, the report of the Bradley Commission on Veterans Affairs,2 a monumental study which summarized the laws and proCgrams for the rehabilitation of veterans and which analyzed the results of a special Census Bureau survey taken in 1955 concerning the use of veterans benefits; second, the several reports of the Census Bureau which covered the school anld college enrollmlielnt alndl educational attainment of the Armed Forces and of veterans at (lifferent poinlts in time ;3 third, studies concerniing the educational status of servicemen made by the researclh divisions of the Army Service Forces towardl the end of World War II and by the Veterans Administration ;4 and fourth, a number of papers written by individual scholars and published in books and professional journals. The conventional way of demonstrating the advantageous educational position of veterans is to compare their educational attainmeent with that of male nonveterans of similar ages. In 1952, World War II veterans who xvere 25 to 34 years old had a median of 12.3 years of formal schooling completed as compared with just 10.0 years for nonveterans in the same age group. About 24 percent of the veteran group and only 15 percent of the nonveterans had completed at least one year of college.5 At other ages, there were also differences of varying magnitudes, so that it can be said that the veterans were definitely better schooled by this point after the war and a great part of the advantage would seem to lhave been attributable to their postwar training. Before analyzing the amount and sources of education received by veteranis in the postwar period, liowever, the educational selectivity among those who entered the Armed Forces should be colnsidered. EDUCATIONAL SELECTIVITY OF ARMED FORCES MEMBERS The men who entered military service in World War II or in the Korean Conflict had to pass mental as well as physical tests. The mental tests, developecl by the Armed Forces, were used to estimate a man's ability to absorb training and perform effectively. To pass the tests, a miani lhad to be able to read, do simple sums, and perceive spatial relationships.6 MAany of those with little formal education were not likely to lhave passed the tests. Furthermiiore, since plhysical impairment is more often associate(l with low thaan high socioeconomic status, and hence witlh low tllan high education, those who passed the minimum mental tests but failed the plhysical examinations quite likely were drawn disproportionately from the lower educational classes. The effect of this sorting process on the educational attainment distributions of those who entered the service, as compared with the universe of persons from whiclh they were drawn, has been estimated. The average servicemlan 2 The President's Commission on Veterans' Pensions, A Report oniVeterans' Benzefits it the Untited States, Staff Report No. IX, Part A, House Committee Print No. 289, 84th Congress, 2d Session (Washingtoni: U.S. Government Printing O.ice, 1 956). 3 In particular, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, Nos. 19, 45, 77, and 99, and U.S. Cenis-us of Popitlation: 1950, Vol. II, Part 1, U.S. Summary (Washingtoni: U.S. Governmeint Printing Office, 1953). 4 "Educational Background of the Men in the Armed Services and Their Educational Plans for the Future," The School E;rec'utive, 64 (May 1945.), pp. 39-40; and various reports of the Veterans Administration. 5 Bureau of the Census, Current Popitlationi Reports, Series P-20, No. 45, table 16. 6 U.S. Department of Labor, Arined Forces Rejections during the first year of the Korean. UWar (from a statement by General Hershiey before the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives, June 9, 1952). This content downloaded from 207.46.13.187 on Sun, 15 May 2016 04:51:55 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms