n;...,, - \ \ f CONTINUING 1‘ '- T" - ' EDUCATION vn vim-Er]: I om...,.'."",,,,,” I, lv'l-y'~rr/-(;“y: ’3" r ”,4 ' r‘ v:. ""4"""HA‘vcll r .,V.....’..., A. rvulrl, , I {1' 4,, r If». Avid J" "W I. "I-:-r a , I'IIJ ‘wt-u ‘l\‘ .\V' ‘ V .L I 1;! r1 Win-Iv 'IIIJ 'VIA'»‘I .1 «r r ' 9'1"!" ’l/ f "VI-V, ‘1’ ”"I‘q :MI ." '(A' .r a ”If” my?" {5 ’ (ff/:7- 7/3,!“ 153%? '3.“- ‘ W'KQWAQ "15.73“: rlv‘... .f’ -.»\\.v _‘\~ 1 o u'flfr‘w‘tt;/ run-«'1' 1. .1. ,-/..,,.".rr. , . ”w . ”awry-'flr'Z} fp' {gnu '35:”! éfma’o‘vg , ‘ 613’; 5,_ 591.556? 1'! 0’! "C‘V' v.1 I: if?“ fil‘<0.\""h\ vmvaiéfiui . _ _ “A“n.-..~‘».~un\n..‘“\,_‘\ \ , ‘~\\H\~~v)’m .\ \ ‘Q‘fl-IN‘I\I in“ u v “Wu/0W“- \ it" ' ‘ I fir er" This is to certify that the thesis entitled Individual and Social Benefits of Federally Supported Continuing Education - An Effort to Assess, Over a Quarter Century and Within a Mid-American Cormnunity, Impact of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act (GI Bill) Upon Individuals, Their Families, and Their Community presented by Mary Ann Diller has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Continuing Education .- .ZM/ Rus d1 J. Kleis \ / Major professor Date October 22, 1973 0-7 639 gm e ¥, '7‘ 'V‘ a L; meant}! ‘9‘" . M..«~- \‘NK‘w: n S ta- [ll/Ill Illll/llllllllllylfllfll L W999 1293 10737 I!” ll ' if)" 300 A279 '0' l 9 1993/ ABSTRACT INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL BENEFITS OF FEDERALLY SUPPORTED CONTINUING EDUCATION An Effort to Assess, Over a Quarter Century and Within a Mid-American Community, Impact of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act (GI Bill) Upon Individuals, Their Families, and Their Community By Mary Ann Diller This study has investigated, in retrospect, contributions made by the education and training provisions of the Servicemen's Readjust- ment Act (the GI Bill) to individuals, their families, and society as exhibited in a representative mid-American community, Danville, Illinois. Male trig?! school graduates1 from classes of l936, 1937, l938, 1939, and 1940 were chosen for the study as having had time to enter post-secondary educaticni prior to the United States entry into World War II. It was assumed that educational and occupational level of all respondents would have been influenced by educational and occupational levels of their parents, Tout that the GI Bill would have had a differentiating impact on those veterans who used its educational benefits. Those who entered service writhout post-secondary education and who used the GI education benefits upon returning, were assumed as not likely to have undertaken post-secondary education without the GI Bill. Mary Ann Dil' Variables employed as indicators of difference between veter; who had used GI educational benefits, veterans who had not used them and non-veterans included: (1) annual income, (2) occupational leve' (3) occupational advancement, (4) contributions of time and money to civic causes, (5) frequency of voting in local, state and national e' tions, (6) holding of elected offices or appointed positions on poli¢ making boards (7) educational aspirations for their children, (8) vo- cations chosen or aspired to by their children, (9) mobility of resi- dence within the community, (l0) migration out of the community, (11: participation in cultural activities, (l2) choice of leisure-time activities, and (l3) involvement in programs of continuing education. Data were obtained from high school transcripts and a survey instrument, designed to plot progress of graduates over three decades A partial replication of a l955 survey of veterans by the Bureau of < Censusz was included. Effort was made to include all male graduates for the five years in the study. Responses from 267 constituted 6l | cent of the surveys mailed and 36 per cent of the total population. Computer analysis of data from high school transcripts showed no sig- nificant differences between non-respondents, men whose addresses we! unknown, men who were known dead, and men who did respond to the sur‘ Responses were coded and data were punched on IBM cards and processel by the Control Data Corporation 6500 computer at Michigan State Univl sity. Where cell size justified doing so, chi square of statistical significance were run on the relationships between training levels a1 the dependent variables. The percentages generally used in reportinl the results were computed on an electronic calculator. Mary Ann Dil It was found that the veterans who participated in the educa and training program provided by the GI Bill (1) have a higher incom (2) have a position in a higher level occupation, (3) are less likel to choose their father's occupation, (4) have more stability with th current firm or institution, (5) have more vertical mobility within their occupation, (6) vote more frequently in local, state and natio elections, (7) provide more volunteer service to local causes, (8) a more likely to be the first members of their family to achieve forma post-secondary education, (9) have more mobility of residence within their community, (10) are less likely to migrate out of their commun (ll) visit art galleries more frequently, and (12) have more childre who have chosen or have aspired to higher level occupations. Educat or training under the GI Bill makes little or no difference in (l) stability of family, (2) number of children, (3) involvement in cont uing education programs or (4) participation in travel, music or lit erary programs. The GI Bill has turned out to be a good investment because of both the economic and non-economic contributions it has made to the individual veteran, his family and his community. 1Direct female participation in the education and training p visions of the GI Bill by this age group was judged to be too minima to justify their inclusion in the study. 2The President's Commission on Veterans' Pensions, A Report Veterans' Benefits in the United States, Readjustment Benefits: Gen Survey andgflppraisal, 84th Cong., 2d sess., House Committee Print No 289, Staff Report IX, pt. A, Sept. ll, l956 (Washington, D.C.: Gove ment Printing Office, l956), Appendix B, pp. 203-4. INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL BENEFITS OF FEDERALLY SUPPORTED CONTINUING EDUCATION An Effort to Assess, Over a Quarter Century and Within a Mid-American Community, Impact of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act (GI Bill) Upon Individuals, Their Families, and Their Community By Mary Ann Diller A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1973 _ _ III‘II“ . ‘1‘ . ()3 III \I I". \3 TA Copyright by MARY ANN DILLER 1973 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many friends have contributed their help through the long years this road of continuing education has been followed. They have stood at the crossroads with encouragement and their confidence has given me the incentive to continue. They have been appreciated and are thanked for their contributions. It is impossible to acknowledge adequately the help of Professor Russell J. Kleis, my mentor and friend. His guidance, assistance and untiring patience have been highly valued. I am grateful to Dr. Max R. Raines, Dr. Donald 0. Meaders and Dr. John Useem for their assistance as members of my guidance committee. I would like to thank Dr. Howard Teitelbaum and Robert Wilson of the Office of Research Consultation for their valuable help on research de— sign, instrument development and statistical analysis. Appreciation is extended to the officials of Danville Junior College and Danville District ll8 for their assistance. Above all, I am grateful to the male graduates of Danville High School who took the time to answer the survey which provided the data for this dissertation. 11' Chapter I. THIRTY YEARS AFTER THE GI BILL ......... The Problem ..................... Purposes and Plan of the Study . . . . ........ Overview of the Dissertation ............. II. THE GI BILL: SOCIAL PURPOSES AND POLITICAL RESPONSES. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS Federal Policy toward Adult Education Prior to World War II ........... . ...... The Emergence of the "GI Bill of Rights” ....... Summary ....................... IMPUTED VALUES OF EDUCATION IN GENERAL AND THE GI BILL IN PARTICULAR ..................... Social Scientists View the Contributions of Education ............. . . ...... Assessments of the GI Bill . . . . . . ........ Summary . . . ........ . . . . ...... THE COMMUNITY WHERE THE STUDY WAS MADE ..... Introduction . . . .................. History ............. Representativeness on Major Indicators . . . ..... Summary ....................... METHODOLOGY ...................... Development of the Instrument ..... Collection of the Data. Mailing and Return of the . . Questionnaire ................... Assumptions ............... Preparation and Analysis of Data . . . . Summary .......... Chapter VI. FINDINGS ............ Introduction . . ...... . . . . . . . . ..... Profile of Respondents . . . ...... . . . Utilization of Benefits and Type of Education or Training ...................... Income of the Respondents . . The Impact of the GI Bill upon Selected Characteristics of the Veteran Himself and His Family ....................... Post Secondary Education ....... . . ..... Marital and Family Related Factors ....... . . Occupational Levels of Veterans and Non-Veterans . . Occupational Aspirations of Children of Respondents ................... Occupational Continuity in Families of Professional Workers ................... Occupational Continuity in Families of Executives and Owners ..... . ........... Occupational Continuity in Families of Other White Collar Workers .................. Occupational Continuity in Families of Skilled Laborers . . . ................. Occupational Continuity in Families of Semi-skilled Workers ..................... Occupational Continuity in Families of Unskilled Workers ................... Involvement in Continuing Education . . ...... Choice of Leisure Activities . . . ......... The Impact of the GI Bill Upon the Community in Which the Veteran Resides ......... . . Summary ....................... VII. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ......... Summary of the Study ........... . . . . . . Summary of the Findings . . . . . . . . ....... Observations by the Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions and Implication . . . . . ........ iv Page 66 66 67 79 83 86 89 93' 98 102 102 104 106 108 110 115 117 121 130 133 133 136 140 Page SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................... 145 APPENDICES A. PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEES WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO THE FORMULATION OF THE SERVICEMEN'S READJUSTMENT ACT Members of the Advisory Committee on Education . . . . 158 Members of the Conference on Postwar Readjustment of Civilian and Military Personnel ........... 160 Members of the Armed Forces Committee on Postwar Educational Opportunities for Service Personnel . . . 161 B. SURVEY INSTRUMENT Accompanying Letter .................. 162 Instrument ...................... 163 Followup Letter .................... 167 Table 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Population of Danville from 1840 (sixth decennial census of the United States and Danville's first) to T970 ..................... Population of the United States from l84O (sixth decennial census) to l970 ............... Characteristics of the labor force in 1940 for the United States, North East Central Region, State of Illinois, and City of Danville ............ Percent distribution of the population by race in the United States and City of Danville, Illinois, in T960 and in the City of Danville in l940 and 1930 . . . Comparison of foreign born population by country or origin in Danville, Illinois, in 1940 and 1960 Income in l949 and 1959 of families and unrelated individuals for United States and Danville, Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ Distribution of population by levels of income and by sex, United States and City of Danville, Illinois . . . Median years of schooling completed by males and females in the United States and City of Danville, Illinois, in 1960, l950, and 1940.. . . . ..... Distribution of veterans according to employment or schooling the year before entering service ...... Distribution of veterans according to the type of job at which each worked the longest the year before entering service . . . . ............... Percentage of respondents who did or did not return to the same job or same kind of job as before service and reasons given for not returning to same ..... vi Page 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 56 68 69 7O Table 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Reason given by veterans who use GI education or training benefits .......... . . ....... Percentage of veterans who did or did not complete course of study started under GI Bill and stated reasons for non-completion .............. Amount the skill or training gained with GI Bill assistance has been used in present job ........ Percentage of veterans and non-veterans who had been in each quartile of male students in their high school graduating classes ............... Occupational level of the fathers of veterans and non-veterans ............. Percentage of veterans who used the GI Bill, veterans who did not use the GI Bill and non-veterans from each quartile of male students in their high school graduating classes ...... . . .......... Occupational distribution of the fathers of veterans who used the GI Bill, veterans who did not use the GI Bill and non-veterans ............... Percentage of sons of fathers in various occupations who as veterans utilized or did not utilize the education and training benefits of the GI Bill Type of education or training pursued by veterans electing to use educational benefits of the GI Bill according to the occupational level of the father . . . Type of pre-service educatidn or training of veterans who did not use the GI Bill for each sub-group based upon occupational level of their fathers ....... Percentage of non-veterans who undertook post-secondary education and training and of those who undertook it within two years of graduation according to the occupational level of their fathers .......... Type of post-secondary education or training of non— veterans according to the occupation of their fathers ........................ Percentage of non-veterans with post-secondary education or training indicating an occupational deferment according to the occupational level of their fathers. . vii Page 72 75 76 77 78 79 8O 82 83 84 84 85 Table 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Reported 1970 income levels of all respondents by major study groups. (Excluding government pensions) Income of veterans and non—veterans according to type of training ....... . . ..... . . . . . . Percentage comparison of post-secondary education of respondents' parents . . . . ............. Comparison of respondents by training level according to the percentage of parents having post-secondary education or training . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marital status of respondents . Number of children of respondents . . Educational aspiration that veterans who used the GI Bill, veterans not using the GI Bill and non-veterans have for their children . . . . . Occupational levels of respondents compared to occupational level of their fathers . . Comparison of the occupational level of respondents according to training level ........ . . . Percentage comparison of the occupational level chosen or aspired to by children of respondents Percentage comparison of the occupational level of respondents and their fathers, and occupational choice or aspiration of their children where respondents' fathers were professional . . ............ Occupational level of respondents and occupational choice or aspiration of their children where respondents' fathers were professional ..... Occupational level of respondents and occupational choice or aspiration of their children where respondents' fathers were executives or owners of their own businesses ......... Occupational level of respondents and occupational choice or aspiration of their children where respondents' fathers were white collar workers viii Page 87 88 89 91 94 94 95 97 99 100 101 103 105 107 Table 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. . 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. Occupational level of respondents and occupational choice or aspiration of their children where respondents' fathers were skilled laborers ..... Occupational level of respondents and occupational choice or aspiration of their children where respondents' fathers were semi-skilled laborers . . . Occupational level of respondents and occupational choice or aspiration of their children where respondents' fathers were unskilled laborers Comparison of positions held by respondents in their present jobs .................... Stability of employment of respondents Percentage of participation in continuing education by groups of respondents according to the kind of organization sponsoring program . . . . . ...... Distribution of respondents by groups and by leisure activities enjoyed . . . . . . . . ........ Percentage and frequency of respondents attending plays, concerts and art galleries during the past two years by groups . . . . . . . . . . ....... Percentage and frequency of respondents traveling for pleasure in home state, other states, and in other countries during the past two years by groups . . . . Distribution of respondents and years lived in their present communities . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of respondents by group and number of times they have moved in the past ten years ..... Distribution of respondents by group and type of housing in which they live . Value of housing owned or monthly rent paid by respondents ....... . . . . . .‘ ........ Number of community agencies to which time or money has been contributed by respondent groups since 1960 ........................ Percentage of respondents by groups who contributed time, money, or both . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ix Page 109 111 112 113 114 119 120 122 122 123 Table 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. Number of days time contributed by groups of respondents to community agencies last year ...... Amount of money contributed to community agencies by groups of respondents last year . . . . . . . . . Percentage of respondents holding various public Offices by groups . . . . . .............. Number of years that respondents have served in public office by group . . . . . . . . . . ........ Percentage of respondents voting in primary, local, state, and federal elections during the past ten years by groups ....... . . . . . . . . ..... Percentage of respondents who participated in local, state, and national political party conventions during the past ten years by groups . . . . . . . ...... Page 126 127 CHAPTER I THIRTY YEARS AFTER THE GI BILL The Problem Education is essential not only to individual fulfillment but to the vitality of our national life. The vigor of our free in- stitutions depends upon educated men and women at every level of society. . . . Ultimately, education serves all of our purposes-- liberty, justice and all our other aims . . . . In the decade of the seventies, Americans will be faced with major decisions on national policy. With more and more demands being placed on our national resources it becomes essential to determine whether or not massive new sums of federal money should be put into education and especially into the education of adults. The beginning of the decade seems a particularly appropriate time to examine the social utility of that policy alternative. While a major share of federal resources have never been com- mitted to adult education, there have been several experiments with such commitment.2 One of these, the Servicemen's Readjustment Act 1President's Commission on National Goals, Report of the Commis- sion, Goals for Americans, administered by the American Assembly of Columbia University (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960). p. 89. 2Among these are the Freedmen's Bureau, the Cooperative Exten- sion Service, the depression spawned FERA and TVA, and the Servicemen's Readjustment Act (GI Bill). (commonly known as the GI Bill), was unique in that it included as one of its major components a program of formal participation in higher education for adults. It also included less formal and lower level components. It has been the purpose of this study to investigate, in retro- spect, the contribution made by the GI Bill to individuals, to their families, and to the society as represented by one reasonably represent- ative mid-American community. Woven into the threads of American history is an unmistakable federal commitment to education--sometimes strong, sometimes wavering, but always present. Carl T. Pacacha did a valuable study of the in- fluence of one man in shaping federal educational policy. His disser- tation, "Floyd Wesley Reeves: Pioneer in Shaping Federal Legislation in Support of Adult Education",1 traces the turbulent history of federal aid to education during the period of the Great Depression and World War II and culminating in the GI Bill. He emphasized the significance to adult education and to society of that law. In recent years social scientists, particularly economists, have done many studies on the value of education to the individual and to society. It has been suggested that education may be the way out of poverty for both adults and their children. Early in 1950, the Veterans' Administration undertook a study of the effectiveness of the GI Bill, and when the President's Commission on Veterans' Pensions found little 1Carl T. Pacacha, "Floyd Wesley Reeves: Pioneer in Shaping Federal Legislation in Support of Adult Education" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970). objective information available to analyze the veterans' program and its contribution to the veterans' readjustment, they arranged a special survey of veterans by the Bureau of the Census in October, 1955.1 The general appraisal of the education and training program done in these surveys indicated that the GI Bill made a major contribution to the welfare of the nation and to those individual veterans who had taken advantage of the education benefits it provided. These studies, however, were done too early to give a true indication of the long-range effec- tiveness of the GI Bill. It would seem that if the GI Bill were found to have been effec- tive in serving both individual and social purposes over a generation of time that this same principle of massive federal support of education might be utilized in attempting long range and durable solutions to some of our present national problems. Purpose and Plan of the Study This study sought to ascertain, within the context of one com- munity, whether participation in the education and training program of the GI Bill has made any difference in selected aspects of the lives of individual veterans, their children and their community over a period of three decades. Specifically, it has sought answers to the following questions: 1. Did veterans from semi-skilled and unskilled groups tend to participate less (less frequently and/or at lower levels) than veterans from white collar and skilled groups in GI sponsored education programs? 1See Chapter III, pages 36—8. Did veterans who participated in the education and training program of the GI Bill differ systematically from non-veterans and from veterans who did not participate with respect to the following characteristics: a. b. Years of formal post-high school education or training? Annual income? Occupational patterns? Choosing the occupation of their fathers? Occupational stability? Vertical mobility within their occupations? Frequency of voting in local, state, and national elections? National offices held? State offices held? Leadership roles in the community where they reside, such Egamgmbership on the city council, library board, school Volunteer service to civic causes such as United Fund? Being the first member of their family to achieve formal post-high school education or training? Stability of family? Number of children? Educational aspiration for their children? Education levels achieved by their children? Vocations chosen by their children? Mobility of residence within the community? Migration out of the community? Participation in travel, art, music, and literature? Involvement in the continuing education programs provided in the community by the schools and colleges, social ser- vice agencies, churches, and industries? The GI Bill represented a case of the commitment of federal re- sources to education and the basic problem of this study has been an attempt to answer the question: did it work? While several I'cross— section" studies have been made of veterans who have received benefits under the GI Bill, no literature has been found which documents the cumulative benefits to the individual, his family and his fellow citi- zens in a typical American community over a generation of time. It seemed to this investigator that one logical way to assess the GI Bill would be to look very carefully at the World War II veterans in a typi- cal American community in an effort to find out, in so far as possible, whether and how the education and training provisions of the GI Bill had affected them, their families and their community during the past three decades. This study has attempted such an assessment. Danville, Illinois, was determined to be a reasonably repre- sentative mid-American community in which an in—depth case study of veterans could be conducted. Male graduates of Danville High School were selected as the specific population to be studied. (Direct female participation in the education and training provisions of the GI Bill by this age group was judged to be too minimal to justify their inclusion in the study.) The high-school graduating classes of 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, and 1940 were chosen for the study as the graduates of these classes would have had ample time to have started advanced education or training prior to U.S. entry into World War II. Those who entered service with— out post—secondary education and who used the GI education benefits upon returning, were assumed as likely to have not undertaken post-secondary education without the GI Bill. An instrument, carefully designed to plot the progress of these graduates over three decades, was mailed to all of those of the selected five graduating classes from Danville High School who could be located. Sixty percent of the questionnaires were completed and returned. Answers to the questions posed in this study as they are revealed in this representative mid-American community over a thirty year period provide valuable insights into the social utility of federally supported adult education. Such insights not only show how effective that parti- cular case was; more significantly, they may suggest how effective we might assume a broader application of the principle to be. Overview of the Dissertation This chapter has identified the problem and has posed specific questions which form the basis for the chapters which follow. In Chapter II a brief history of federal involvement in adult education, including the emergence of the GI Bill, is presented. A review of the literature on the value of education as viewed by social scientists and a review of the GI Bill studies conducted by the Veterans' Administration, the President's Commission on Veterans' Pensions and other investigators is presented in Chapter 111. Chapter IV portrays the community from which the study sample was drawn, Chapter V describes the survey instrument and the methodology used in the collection and analysis of the data. Chapter VI presents the results obtained from the survey, and Chapter VII contains conclusions and implications. CHAPTER_II THE GI BILL: SOCIAL PURPOSES AND POLITICAL PROCESSES Federal Policy toward Adult Education Prior to World War II Ever since the founding of the republic, significant leaders within the government of the United States have been interested in federal aid to education, including the education of adults. A prece- dent was established in the Ordinance of 1785 through which public land, the sixteenth section of each township, was reserved by federal action for the support of schools in the newly created Northwest Territory. In 1862 the Morrill Act granted each state 30,000 acres of public land for each of its members in Congress for the purpose of supporting at least one college to provide for "the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life." The act was a significant one for adult education as the land-grant col- leges were later to become the operating base for the Cooperative Exten- sion Service, a national educational effort in behalf of adults. The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 established the Cooperative Extension Service in each of the land-grant colleges. The recently established Federal City College, while not technically a land-grant college, has developed the newest Cooperative Extension Service with Congressional approval. The increasing industrialization of the United States, and especially the surge of industrial development associated with World War I, led to a demand for adequately trained workers. The Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 was enacted to provide federal support for vocational educa- tion below the college level among youth and‘adults.1 . During the Great Depression the Roosevelt administration's "New Deal" established various educational programs both inside and out- side the traditional institutions of education. While these were viewed chiefly as a means of providing economic relief to individuals and assisting in the national recovery, they also represented another step toward federal participation in the support of education for youth and adults. Amont the depressioneinspired educational programs which in- cluded adult education were: 1. Civil Works AdminiStration (CWA) established within the Federal Emergency Relief Administration in 1933. CWA tackled a variety of jobs: road construction, playgrounds, school construction. Fiftyhthousand teachers were employed in country schools or city adult education programs. 2. Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) established in 1933 to provide employment and vocational training for older youth and unem- ployed men through development of natural resources. CCC in— volved residence in camps or camp-like settings and included an adult education component for the men after,the work day was completed.‘ 3.. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) established in 1933 for the purpose of flood control, navigation, reforestation,.electrical 1This act placed emphasis on adult education by requiring that every vocational education department provide for the education of x adults through evening industrial prOgrams. Only instruction supple- mental to daily employment was permitted, and funds were provided for programs of instruction and teacher training in agriculture, home eco- nomics, trades and industry. power, national defense, and the agricultural and industrial development of the Tennessee Valley. TVA sponsored extensive adult education programs, which aided in the development and conservation of human resources. 4. Works Progress Administration (WPA) established in 1935 to dis- tribute relief. WPA supported a number of educational projects, including literacy education, high school diploma programs for adults, and the hiring of unemployed teachers and other profes- sionals. 5. National Youth Administration (NYA) established within WPA in 1935 to provide relief and employment to individuals 16-25 years of age. Education, including guidance and placement, were important.aspects of the programs for both in-school and out-of- school youth and young adults. After the depression years there was a revival of concern at the national level for federal funding of education on a more permanent basis. The National Advisory Committee on Education had been appointed by President Hoover in 1929 to formulate a federal educational policy . The Report of the Committee called for a five-year postponement in granting addi- tional financial aid to the states until financial surveys could be completed and, as a result, nothing was accomplished. On September 19, 1936, President Roosevelt appointed Dr. Floyd Wesley Reeves, a well known educator and staunch advocate of adult edu- cation, to chair a committee of distinguished educators to conduct a study of then operating or needed vocational education programs financed by the federal government. This study group, known as the President's National Committee on Vocational Education, soon decided that it could not adequately study vocational education independent of all education; GNd Dr. Reeves, as chairman, requested the President to authorize a more comPlete study. This the President did on April 17, 1937. At the same time he expanded the committee in number and breadth of concern for 10 education. The enlarged committee with its expanded charge was renamed the Advisory Committee on Education. Its report was transmitted to Con- gress by the President on February 23, 1938. The recommendations of this comprehensive report were incorporated, with slight changes, in Senate Bill 1305 (Federal Aid to Education Act of 1939). Although this Bill was never enacted, many of the Committee's proposals were incorpo- rated into a succession of laws enacted over the ensuing thirty years. The Report of the Advisory Committee was the first comprehensive plan in this country for a systematic effort by federal government to assist in improving the total educational program of the nation. Carl Pacacha has observed that: To a large degree the Report of the Committee focused on adult education, as well as education of children and youth. Through its provisions for all types of educational programs, the Committee called attention to the inter-relatedness of elementary, secondary, adult, and higher education. And it provided a reference document which would provide basic data for initiating or supporting federal legislation on behalf of education for youth and adults for three decades.1 Several of its provisions were incorporated along with other benefits for returning servicemen in the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, popularly known as the "GI Bill". World War II and its aftermath created a set of conditions within which there could be a coming together of: (1) those who favored educa— tion as a means of social reconstruction to solve the ills of the nation, (2) those who favored education for its benefit to the individual, and (3) those who saw education for veterans as a way of cushioning the economic shock of re-absorbing returning servicemen and women while at 1Carl T. Pacacha, op. cit., Pp. 112-3. 11 the same time "winding down" the levels of production and employment at the close of the war. The legislative give-and-take among proponents of these and other purposes produced a balancing of the ends to be served. The war and reconversion emergency were seized upon as levers to open the door to massive federal support of adult education. The Emergence of the "GI Bill of Rights" A brief review of its evolution reveals both the underlying purposes and the political realities which explain the character of the GI Bill. In 1939, President Roosevelt had created the National Resources ‘Planning Board (NRPD) as the planning arm of the Executive Office of the President. The Chairman of the Board was the President's uncle, Fred- erick A. Delano. Its task, as conceived, virtually constituted the social reconstruction of America.1 Dr. Reeves served as a consultant to the Board from its inception; thus the adult education viewpoint was represented on this most important social planning board. 1Its task, as stated in Executive Order No. 8348, was I'(a) To survey, collect data on, and analyze problems pertaining to national re- sources, both natural and human, and to recommend to the President and the Congress long—time plans and programs for the wise use and fullest development of such resources. (b) To consult with Federal, regional, state, local, and private agencies in developing orderly programs of pub- lic works and to list for the President and the Congress all proposed public works in the order of their relative importance with respect to (l) the greatest good for the greatest number of people, (2) the emer- gency necessities of the Nation, and (3) the social, economic, and cul— tural advancement of the people of the United States. (c) To inform the President of the general trend of economic conditions and to recommend measures leading to their improvement of [sic] stabilization. (d) To act as a clearing house and means of coordination for planning activities, linking together various levels and fields of planning." National Re- sources Committee, Progress Report, 1939, (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1939), p. 167. 12 A The NRPB had actually started economic planning for the postwar period before the United States became directly involved as a combatant. .After we were involved, it became increasingly apparent that the end of hostilities would bring serious social and economic disorganization. During the early months of the 1940's the President felt that any pub- licity given to future demobilization would divert attention from the war, but he knew that planning was necessary. He wanted planning to pro- ceed quietly and on July 6, 1942, he established the Conference on Post- war Readjustment of Civilian and Military Personnel within the NRPB and appointed Dr. Reeves as its chairman.1 The Conference, consisting of twelve members, met regularly dur- . ing 1942-43 as a body within but relatively independent of the NRPD. Its main purpose was to determine plans for the rapid and orderly demobi- lization of personnel from the Armed Forces without endangering either military or economic security. A difficult question which arose quite early concerned the timing of the discharge of servicemen after the war. The alternative suggested by Dr. Reeves and Leonard Outhwaite, to dis— charge the men quickly and provide educational benefits to ease their readjustment problems, was adopted. The Conference felt that the con- tinued education of serfice personnel was essential and that demobiliza- tion provided a politically palatable instrument for getting it offered and funded.2 The Conference report was a fundamentally humanistic docu- ment, the principal elements of which had been authored by Dr. Reeves and Leonard Outhwaite. 1 2 Carl T. Pacacha, o . cit., pp. 156-7. Ibid., pp. 164-8. 13 Dr. Charles E. Merriam, Dr. Reeves' friend and colleague at the University of Chicago, was serving part-time during the war years as vice-chairman of the National Resources Planning Board of which Frederick A. Delano, uncle of President Roosevelt, was chairman. Merriam had re- commended Leonard Outhwaite to Dr. Reeves to serve as Conference secre— tary. Merriam considered Outhwaite to be one of the most brillian minds in America and believed that he would complement Reeves and provide him with many outstanding ideas. This indeed proved to be the case. Dr. Reeves freely acknowledges that “the Conference Report is as much his as "1 However the severe political disfavor into which the it is mine. NRPB had fallen and the strategy of minimizing visibility of ties between it and the Conference made it politically unwise to list Outhwaite as a co-author. Dr. Reeves and Mr. Outhwaite held and spoke for the humanistic view of helping the country by helping the individual. They both believed that the most important thing to do after the war to facilitate the readjustment of both military and civilian personnel to peacetime pur- suits was to invest money in the education of people rather than to pour it into industrial reconversion subsidies and hope that it would indi- rectly serve individual citizens and communities. This opinion was shared despite backgrounds that were economically opposite. Outhwaite had come out of a life of great wealth and luxury while Reeves had come out of a very humble rUral'setting. 1Stated by Floyd W. Reeves in an interview with the writer on July 14, 1971. 14 ‘C Their positions were affected by remembrances of the terrible conditions produced after World War I as veterans and industrial workers were discharged from service and war plants with no jobs and no alter- natives to jobs. The unemployment, the poverty, and the veterans' march on Washington were all vivid in their memories. Dr. Reeves also recalled that the average education of men inducted into service in World War I had been grade fjve, while in World War II it was grade njne. It seemed to me that we would have an entirely different kind of people coming back. They would be fit subjects in many cases for junior college or college education and in any case for high school education, so we wanted to have the bill provide primarily for edu- cational programs.1 ' Dr. Reeves' position as chairman of the Conference enabled him to serve as an effective spokesman for the social point of view he shared with Outhwaite and others, including to some degree at least, President Roosevelt himself. After every war there has been the question of how to deal with the veteran and accomplish the realignment of the economy. Points of view have ranged from the human concerns of creating personal opportunity from adversity, advocated by Dr. Reeves, to priming the economic pump to at least keep it from running dry. Dr. Reeves' reputation as a renowned educator, the national recognition he received as chairman of the Ad— visory Committee on Education, which had made some of these same recom- mendations in 1938, and his work with the National Resources Planning Board made him a man whose words would carry weight with members of the Conference, the NRPB, and other national leaders. 15 The education plan of the Conference was formulated by November, 1942, but the political climate was at that point very inhospitable to any NRPB related plan. Earlier that same year the MRPB had published a report called Security, Work, and Relief Policies1 which advocated a 'cradle-to-the-grave' social welfare program. This report had led to a Congressional attack headed by Robert Taft and Everett Dirksen that caused the NRPB to be abolished in the spring of 1943. Realizing that the NRPB had fallen into disfavor with Congress, the President feared prejudice against its report on Postwar Readjustment of Civilian and Military Personnel. Consequently, four months after appointment of the Reeves Conference and although much of its work was well advanced, he authorized another study group to investigate the prob- lem of demobilization. This new committee, closely identified with the armed forces, was directed by the President to coordinate its activities with those of the Conference. On November 13, 1942, when he signed the law lowering the draft age to eighteen, the President announced the appointment of the commit- tee and described its mission, to study the problem of education and training for veterans of World War II. This group was made up of offi- cers of the War and Navy Departments and a group of the nation's leading educators. It was known as the Armed Forces Committee on Post-War Edu— cational Opportunities for Service Personnel. Brigadier General Frederick H. Osborn of the Morale Service Division became the chairman, and the 1National Resources Planning Board, Security, Work and Relief Policies, Report for 1943, Part 3, submitted to President Roosevelt December 16,1942 (Washington, D. C: Government Printing Office, 1943). 16 committee was generally referred to as the ”Osborn Committee". The President's expectations that Reeves and Osborn would work in harmony on education as they had done as members of the President's Advisory Committee on Selective Service in 1940 were fulfilled.1 The Committee submitted its Preliminary Report to the President on July 30, 1943. Its major premise, the social significance of a major adult education thrust, was quoted by the President to the Congress as follows: All our work has been based on one fundamental proposition, namely, that the primary purpose of any educational arrangements which we may recommend should be to meet a national need growing out of the aggregate educational shortages which are being created by the war. Every day that the war continues, the extent of this deficit is increased. Our efforts have been centered upon the prob- lem of reversing that trend just as quickly as possible after the war; and we have regarded any benefits which may be extended to individuals in the process as incidental. We can hardly overstress the fact that this has been our fundamental conception of the edu- cational problem you wanted us to explore, for it is a basic foun- dation of all the proposals we make to deal with it.2 The Osborn Committee recommended a program that would make it possible for all veterans of World War II to spend one year in a school or training establishment to further their education, learn a trade, and prepare for farming, business, or other pursuits. The Committee also recommended that funds be made available so that a limited number of exceptionally able ex-service men and women could carry on general, pro- fessional, or technical education for an additional period of one, two, or three years. 1Ibid., pp. 170-3. 2U.S., Congress, House, Message from the President of the United States transmitting the Preliminary Report of the Armed Forces Committee on Post-War Educational Opportunities for Service Personnel, H. Doc. 344, 78th Congress, 1st sess., October 27, 1943, p. 6. 17 Q The only qualifications for entering the first year of training, under the Osborn Committee proposal, were that the veteran: (1) had served six months or more in the Armed Forces after September 16, 1940, (2) was admitted to an approved educational institution, and (3) began his training within six months after leaving the service. For those chosen for additional training (the number to be apportioned among the States according to the number of service personnel coming from these states) there were additional provisions: (1) That completion of the courses they are taking will serve to meet recognized educational needs; (2) That by superior performance on a competitive basis they have demonstrated the likelihood that they will profit from these courses; and (3) That they continue to make satisfactory progress in the courses and to give prom1se of future usefulness. To make it financially possible for all eligible veterans to en- roll for the first year of education and training, the Committee recom- mended that the Government pay, for a full—time student, tuition and fees as well as subsistence allowances of $50 per month if single and $75 per month if married, with an allowance of $10 per month for each child. Part-time students were to receive tuition and fees only. Those chosen for additional schooling were to have the same financial arrangements, with the added provisions of Federal loans to a maximum of $50 a month for those finding it impossible to meet their expenses with the grant provided. Tuition and fees were to be paid to the institution with the subsistence grants to be paid directly to each student. 18 a' The Committee estimated that, on the basis of twelve million men and women in the Armed Forces, approximately one million would take advantage of the program, with a total cost of about one billion dollars. It anticipated that veterans would participate in a wide variety of edu- cational programs ranging from literacy training to postgraduate work. The Committee felt that the Federal government did not need to infringe upon the traditional State and local control of education ex- cept to assure that the funds appropriated were providently spent. It recommended a series of proposals for immediate action to help minimize the problems likely to arise in the operation of such a bold new pro- gram of education and training. These included the establishment of an office within a permanent Federal agency to assist the states in the development of educational and training programs for veterans. It is interesting and significant to note that the expressed purpose of the Osborn Committee was not primarily to serve the interests of individual veterans, but to lessen the educational gap caused for the nation by the war. This position was later reaffirmed, in terms almost identical to those in its transmittal message, by another Presidential commission. ”Any benefits that the individual veteran might derive from his education and training were considered to be incidental."1 The President's Political sagacity saved the vast educational plan of the NRPB Conference by pulling it out of the general social re- construction plan. The educational provisions of the Osborn Committee 1The President's Commission on Veterans' Pensions, A Report on Veterans' Benefits in the United States, Readjustment Benefits: Edu- cation and Training and Employment and Unemployment, 84th Cong., 2d sess., House Committee Print No. 291, Staff Report IX, pt. B, Sept. 12, 1956 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1956), p. 5. report were very similar to those of the Conference chaired by Dr. Reeves, and the fact that Osborn was a General made his report acceptable 1 to Congress as a readjustment program for veterans. Whether one re- garded it as a bill to enhance the long range welfare of the individual, a bill to provide for the needs of the nation, or simply as a veterans' bonus bill, he could vote for its passage. In his message to Congress, October 27, 1943, transmitting the Osborn report to Congress, the President restated his belief in the so- cial value to be gained from a major public investment in education. The President said: Vocational and educational opportunities for veterans should be of the widest range. There will be those of limited education who now appreciate, perhaps for the first time, the importance of general education and who would welcome a year in school or college. There will be those who desire to learn a remunerative trade or to fit themselves more adequately for specialized work in agriculture or commerce. There will be others who want professional courses to prepare them for their life work. Lack of money should not prevent any veteran of this war from equipping himself for the most useful employment for which his apti- tudes and willingness qualify him. The money invested in this training and schooling program will reap rich dividends in higher productivity, more intelligent leadership, and greater human hap- piness. We must replenish our supply of persons qualified to discharge the heavy responsibilities of the post-war world. We have taught our youth how to wage war; we must also teach them how to live useful and happy lives in freedom, justice, and decency.2 He pointed out the immediate economic and social benefits of the proposed educational provisions in his statement: 1Carl T. Pacacha, op. cit., p. 174. 2U.S., Congress, House, Message from the President of the United States transmitting the Preliminary Report of the Armed Forces Commit- tee on Post-War Educational Opportunities for Service Personnel, 99, 2.1.1:. 13. 2- 20 One incidental benefit of permitting discharged veterans to put in a year or more of schooling or training would be to simplify and cushion the return to civilian employment of service personnel. And I might call to your attention the fact that it costs less to keep a man at school or college or training on the job, than to maintain him on active duty for a year.1 Senator Thomas of Utah introduced the bill (S. 1509, 78th Cong.), which contained the Committee's recommendations. The bill was reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Education and Labor on February 9, 1944. The debate that developed in committee was not in opposition to the bill, but was centered around ways to broaden its scope, reduce eligibility requirements and increase availability of its benefits. As an example, a minority report, signed by Senator Pepper of Florida and four other committee members, lamented the eligibility provisions re— quiring six months active duty and the provision that eligibility for training beyond one year was to be selectively approved. Many other bills related to veterans' benefits were also intro- duced. The great problem faced by Congress was the combination into one bill of all the suggestions for the readjustment of veterans to civilian life. In addition to education, these proposals included housing and business loans, unemployment compensation and assistance in securing employment. Testimony was presented by officials of the Federal govern- ment, leaders of veterans' and educational organizations and members of Congress. One major discussion surrounding education and training cpm— cerned the locus of responsibility for its administration. The veterans' 1Franklin Delano Roosevelt, "Message to the Congress on Education of War Veterans, October 17, 1943," in The Tide Turns, The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, compiled by Samuel I. Rosenman (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), pp. 451-2. 21 groups wanted the program centered in the Veterans' Administration and the educators insisted on the United States Office of Education. Other differences of opinion related to the procedure by which the objectives were to be obtained. There was general agreement that a major component of the bene- fits awarded to veterans of this war should be generous provision for education and training. The issues were questions of how, how much and for how many. These issues were resolved with the passage of Public Law 346, a law having more liberal provisions than Senate Bill 1509, embodying the recommendations of the Osborn Committee, would have had. In addition to education and training, Public Law 346 established three further programs to aid the veteran in his readjustment. These were loans for the purchase of homes, farms and businesses, assistance in finding employment, and a readjustment allowance (unemployment compen— sation) for all veterans. Senate Bill 1509 would have placed the administration of educa- tional benefits in the Office of Education; Public Law 346 placed the program in the Veterans' Administration. In the area of education and training, Public Law 346 reduced the period of service needed for eli- gibility to ninety days and opened the program to all veterans ”whg_had had their education impeded, interrupted, delayed or interfered with" by entrance into service. A particularly significant provision was that persons not over age twenty-five at the time of entrance into service were to be presumed to have suffered such interruption, delay or inter- ference. There were no specifications in the law relating to aptitude or interests of the veterans or to national needs for various skills or professions. 22 One year of training was provided to every eligible veteran. If this were completed satisfactorily and if the veteran had been younger than twenty-six years of age at the time of induction or if, as an older man at induction, his education or training had been impeded or inter- rupted by reason of entrance into service, he was eligible for additional training for a period equal to the time he was in active service, but not to exceed f0ur years. The law made no provision for educational loans but the subsistence allowance continued during the period of en- titlement. r~ A comparison of S. 1509 and Public Law 346 shows that the law as 9 passed was much less restrictive in the selection of eligible veterans. S. 1509 was based on the philosophy that the Government's responsi- bility, beyond the 1 year of training open to all veterans, was limited to providing education and training to the few who were qualified to profit from such education and who by completing such training would fill the educational gap. Congress decided that a much broader program was in the best interest of the veteran and of society. From the hearings on S. 1509, S. 1617, and H. R. 3917, one may also infer that Congress feared a narrower program would result in the selection of students in the interest of institutional and narrowly defined educational needs, rather than in the best interest of the individual veteran and the general welfare.1 Public Law 346 was further liberalized by the passage of Public Law 368, 79th Congress, lst session, on December 28, 1945. This law, amending the GI Bill, removed the limitations on education and training for those individuals who had not commenced education or training and had it interrupted by entrance into service, increased subsistence allow- ances and extended time for initiating training. Education and training thus became available to any veteran of any age who had served ninety 7 days on active duty between September 16, 1940, and the end Of the war. 1The President's Commission on Veterans' Pensions, A Report of Veterans' Benefits in the United States, Readjustment Benefits: Educa- tion and Training and Employment and Unemployment, op. cit., p. 9. 23 The passage of Public Law 346 was a triumph for adult educatiOn and its supporters. Dr. Floyd Wesley Reeves and his colleagues in edu- cation and government had done a superb job in keeping attention focused on the needs of adults as well as children and youth while leading ef- forts on behalf of federal aid to education. His work as Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Education had brought attention to all areas of education. With the coming of the war, Dr. Reeves and the other advocates supporting federal aid to education astutely merged their cause, at least to the extent that it was concerned with adult education, with that of the many who were concerned about returning to a peace-time economy and the return and readjustment of veterans. Public Law 346 was the result. It served as a vehicle for the launching of a social policy with respect to the federal support of education which they had been preparing for almost a decade. {YIn a large sense, the war served as an ‘ excuse for giving a generation of young men and young women a level of education which most of them would not have had if there had been no war."1’ The final GI Bill was both praised as the most forward step ever taken in the name of democratic education and condemned as a great ex- periment in socialized education.2 Certainly no one in the mid 1940's ~JCarl T. Pacacha, op. cit., p. 169. 2Byron H. Atkinson, "The GI Bill as a Social Experiment," School and Society, LXVIII, No. 1751 (1948), pp. 43-4; Homer D. Babbidge, Jr. and Robert M. Rosenzweig, The Federal Interest in Higher Education (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962), p. 23; Paul Klapper, "The Place of the Col- lege in Educating the Veteran for Civilian Life," School and Society, LX, No. 1578 (1945), pp. 177-80; William Randall, "Implications of the 24 foresaw the vast numbers who would ultimately take advantage of the pro- gram. According to the government's figures, almost eight million participated at a total cost of fifteen billion dollars.1 The Osborn Committee had estimated one million participants and Dr. Reeves had envisioned as many as two or three million war workers and veterans combined who would want to enter higher education institutions.2 In de— fense of Dr. Reeves' estimate, however, it must be noted that he was referring only to education in institutions of higher education and the GI Bill encompassed far more education outside of higher education in- stitutions than in them. Summar ““4 From the historical evidence presented it can be stated that the GI Bill as enacted and amended, along with its other components, was an adult education bill intended, in fact, to serve the general well being of both the community and the individual. It rested upon and extended the public policy assumption that adult education serves the social wel- fare. That assumption, although never clearly ennunciated, was never- theless implicit in the Morrill Act of 1862 establishing a land-grant ‘ 'GI Bill',‘I School and Society, LXIII, No. 1641 (1946), pp. 412-3; Alice M. Rivlin, The Role of the Federal Government in Financing Higher Educa- tion (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute, 1961), p. 64; Dixon Wector, When Johnny Comes Marching Home (Cambridge, Mass.: Houghton- Mifflin Company, 1944), pp. 532-3. 1The President's Commission on Veterans' Pensions, Staff Report IX. pt. 3., op. cit., p. 1. 2Floyd W. Reeves, ”The Contribution of Higher Education During the Transistion from War to Peace," Journal of the American Association 9f_Collegiate Registrars, XIX, No. 4 (1944), p. 453. 25 colleges, the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 establishing the Cooperative Ex- tension Service in the land-grant colleges, the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 establishing adult evening schools in vocational education departments, and the depression-inspired programs embracing adult education. The GI Bill emerged, after the liberalizing amendments of 1945, as a piece of federal legislation committing this country to a broad, comprehensive program that did far more than had been anticipated to pro- vide educational opportunities for a generation of mostly young adults. Logically one might be expected to ask: did it work? It has been the purpose of this study to address that question. CHAPTER III IMPUTED VALUES OF EDUCATION IN GENERAL AND OF THE GI BILL IN PARTICULAR §gcial Scientists View the Contributions OJ: Education In recent years, economists, sociologists, educators and po cal scientists have assessed the contributions of education to the individual and to society. Economists, in particular, have conduct many studies which have clearly established a relationahip between 0f ‘Formal education attained and income, economic growth and produc “though they are not in total agreement on the extent of the causa 119(312 which may be credited to education. Quite generally the studies have shown that persons with mo education receive more income.1 Herman P. Miller studied the relat 1William G. Bowen, "Assessing the Economic Contribution of Cati on: An Appraisal of Alternative Approaches," in Economic Aspec Higher Education, edited by Seymour E. Harris (Organization for nomic Cooperation and Development, 1962), p. 196; D. X. Bridgman, " ems in Estimating the Monetary Value of College Education," The R [1317\Economics and Statistics, XLII, Supplement (August, 1960), pp. 1 Cdmund deS. Brunner, I'Education and Economic Characteristics," Teac 11g]\1ege Record, XLIX, No. 7 (1948), p. 465; H[endrik] s. Houtha_kker N duCation and Income," The Review of Economics and Statistics, XLI °~ 1 (1959), pp. 24-8; Herman P. Miller, ”Income and Education: D Ed”cation Pay Off?" in Economics of Higher Education, edited by Sel 26 27 between education levels and income levels within a national p01: . sanuale for the years 1939—1959 and reported that: In every year for which data are presented the completic additional year of schooling was associated with higher aver income for men. This finding parallels that obtained in nun other studies of the relationship between education and incc dating back to the early part of the century. Although the levels have changed considerably during the past 20 years, 1 relationship between the extent of schooling and income appe have remained much the same. Contrary to the expectations c analysts, the economic advantages accruing from the completi additional years of schooling have not diminished in recent Miller also points out that the advantages of additional 'tiorl extend beyond those that are immediately apparent. Inexper worfl 1Paul C. Glick and Herman P. Miller, "Educational Level and potential Income.‘I American Sociological Review, XXI, No. 3 (1956), ‘ 1308. F’ 2John Vaizey, The Economics of Education (London: Faber and aber, 1962), p. 45. ¥ 29 combination was made by Dael Wolfle and Joseph G. Smith. They compared the achievement, fifteen to twenty years later, of two large groups of high school graduates of equal ability on the basis of grades and apti- One group had gone on to college while the other had tude tests. 1 terminated formal education after high school. Male high school graduates who stood high in their classes tended to earn more than those who stood low in their high school clas- ses . Those who, as students,.had made high scores on intelligence tests, later earned higher salaries than did those who had made low scores on intelligence tests. The ones who came from more favored family backgrounds had higher incomes than those who came from less favored portions of the socio-economic scale. (Not enough of the women were employed to justify statistical analysis.)2 Superimposed on these three tendencies, however, and in a sense overriding all three, was clear evidence of substantial salary differ- ences directly related to the amounts of education beyond high school. For men within any given level of high school rank or for men within any given range of intelligence test scores, the median salary rose Steadily with larger amounts of post-high school education. Although hlgh-school grades, intelligence-test scores, and father's occupation Were all correlated with salaries being earned fifteen to twenty years EH:ter graduation from high school, amount of education beyond high sch001 was most clearly related to salaries being earned. \ Ed 1Dael Wolfle and Joseph G. Smith, "The Occupational Value of .uCation for Superior High School Graduates," Journal of Higher Educa- -112£L. xxv11 (April, 1956), p. 201. 21bid., p. 206. IIIIIIII-n...__ _____, 30 The advantage of higher education is greatest for those of highest ability. A man of moderately superior qualifications can earn more and contribute.more with advanced education than without it; a man of very superior qualifications can earn and contribute much more.1 Seymour E. Harris has provided a succinct statement concerning the economists' studies. On the returns to education issue, at least this may be said: It is clear that students who go to college or have more education tend to have.higher annual incomes and higher lifetime incomes. The portion to be allotted to education is not clear . . . .2 A number of studies have confirmed that the relation between college education and the father's educational attainment is a strong one.3 Brazer and David describe the sharp rise in the level of educa- tion that has occurred in America and state that higher levels of educa- tion of parents helps to explain motivation toward higher levels of education for children. The distribution of educational attainments is strongly influ- enced by the experience of the last generation; it also implies a strong mechanism for transferring the values and achmplishments of; each generation to the succeeding generation . . . . .4 Education of the spending unit head proved to be the most im- portant factor influencing the education of the children. 1Ibid., p. 208. 2Seymour E. Harris, editor, Economic Aspects of Higher Educa- :2331. 09. cit., p. 57. , . 3Louis H. Conger, Jr., "College and University Enrollment: Prof JeCtltans," in Economics of Higher Education, edited by Selma J. Mushkin, .931211;., p. 14; Herman P. Miller, Rich Man, Poor Man (New York: Thomas Crowell Company, 1964), p. 117. . 4Harvey E. Brazer and Martin David, IISocial and Economic Deter- m1nates of the.Demand for Education," in Economics of Higher Education, 9(”ted by Selma J. Mushkin, OE. cit., P- 23- 51bid., p. 26. .321 Several studies also point to the fact that the more educated the person, the broader his range.of choice of.VOcation.1 In addition - togproviding.a greater variety of octupational opportunities, more edUca- tion also alloWs people to move vertically to.higher positions,: Further, most Sociologists agree that educatién affects.50cial status. Amount of education has not become a good indicator of socio— economic status, from.lower-1ower up through upper-middle class, for education leads to economic opportunity. Young people, through education, secure higher-status jobs than their fathers had. With greater incomes, young adults from lower-status families tend to associate with persons of higher status and learn and adopt their ways. We may conclude consequently, that education provides the channel not only to better socio-economic status, but also to social mobility in the broader sense. Several economists point out that as the educated man earns more money, he also tends_to consume more goods and services.3 Weisbrod W indicates a number of additional benefits of education which tend to ”spill—over” to society in general. Literacy has social value beyond its value to the individual possessing it and to employers. Education 1Edward F. Dennison, "Measuring the Contributions of Education 0) Economic Growth," in The Economy of Education, edited by E. A. G. RWDinson and J. E. Vaizey (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1966), p. 236; George F. Kneller, Education and Economic Thought (New York: John Wiley mui Sons, Inc., 1968), p. 91; Burton A. Weisbrod, Spillover of Public Benefits, Cooperative Research Education Costs and Benefits, Part One: PrgJect No. 1045 (U.S. Office of Education Cooperative Research Program, n ' ° 9 p. 9. . 2Robert J. Havighurst and Bernice L. Neugarten, Society and Edu- EEIJ£!Q.(an ed.: Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1962), p. 229. . 3Robert S. Eckhaus, "Education and Economic Growth,” in Economics fi:_fllilber Education, edited by Selma J. Mushkin, op. cit., p. 108; W. Lee ansefll and Burton A. Weisbrod, Benefits, Costs, and Finance of Public -giQDSEELgEducation,.op. cit., p. viii; George F. Kneller, Education and EEQQSHE c Thought,.gp. cit., p. 91; Burton A. Weisbrod, Spillover of ~gHSEZIE10n Costs and Benefits, op. cit., p. 11. IIIIIII--.__ 32 .- ... also contributes to equality of opportunity which is a social goal. Society also benefits from the higher taxes associated with the greater income of higher educated persons.1 Robert M. Solow, Professor of Economics at Massachusetts Insti- tute of Technology, has studied the value of education to society. At a Harvard seminar on education and public policy he made the following statement: . . the proper criterion for the allocation of resources for education, as distinct from the use of resources in other industries, is not simply its contribution to the algebraic rate of increase of the Gross National Product. .There is also a consumption or amenity aspect of education. We value education, not only because it helps to increase the GNP, but also, I have heard tell, because it makes good citizens and enriches life and accomplishes a couple of other minor things.2 . Philip M. Hauser gives emphasis to the amenity or ”quality-of- life" values of education. What are the implications of the American people's rising level of formal education? First of all, it should be noted that increased education opens up new vistas of intellectual, emotional and aesthetic experience to the population. It means that the level of living of the people of thg United States will be raised culturally as well as materi- ally. . 1Burton A. Weisbrod, Spillover of Public Education Costs and m: M" p. 12. . 2Edward F. Dennison, Robert M. Solow, and Otto Eckstein, "Edu- caticnd and Economic Productivity," in Education and Public Policy, edited by S{ES/mour E. Harris .and .Alan Levensohn (Berkeley, Cal .: McCutchan PUb'l'lshing Corporation, 1965), p. 338. 3PhilipiM. HauSer, Population Perspectives (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1960), P- 75- I‘IIIIII-nu...__ _33 Herman P. Miller's studies have verified the positive relation- ship between education and personal income, but he adds still another socially significant contribution. The poor may come to see education as a way out of poverty, both for adults and for their children. Perhaps it is regrettable to stress the value of education in such crass terms. Education tends to produce a richer and more varied life, and it is fundamental to the operation of a democratic society. For these reasons alone, it is worth its cost in time, money, and effort even if the economic advantage should cease to exist. . . . But there is at least one more reason for stressing the payoff from educatione-to convince our poor, whose children are badly in need of schooling, that it may be a way out of their present dilemma. There are still many in our society who have had little experience with education and.they do not.see how it can help them. It is a simple.point, but a fundamental one that is often overlooked. Many social workers.have observed that the poor today lack the interest in education that characterized the immigrant poor who lived in the same slums.twenty.or.thirty years ago.. If this is the case, it could perpetuate the vicious circle which transmits poverty from one generation to the next.1 Agsessments of the GI Bill The long-range effectiveness of the GI Bill as an exemplary pro- granlof federally supported continuing education, in achieving these and similar purposes of eduCation certainly needed to be assessed. Among the early assessments‘that' were made, several examined the extent t0 Mfliich World War II veterans received benefits under the GI Bill and some of them analyzed the differences apparent as a result of their ha\"il'lg received them. The federal government authorized several of these Studies to evaluate the results of the various programs and to serve as a 9Uide for legislative and administrative planning of subsequent program's \ 1Herman P. Miller, Rich Man, Poor Man, op. cit., pp. 148-9. 34 Early in 1950, the Veterans' Administration Committee on Statis- tical Needs, made up of representatives from each of the operating and staff offices and the Office of the Administrator, recommended that a special study be conducted to provide data describing the pattern of World War II veterans' participation in the major VA programs and the combined amount of benefits received under all programs by specified groups of beneficiaries in the five years after V-J Day. The study de- sign and the report are published by the Reports and Statistics Service, Office of the Controller, Veterans' Administration.1 This study of a randomly selected group of veterans was made to determine the number and characteristics of World War II veterans who received benefits and services under the major VA programs, the amount of such benefits and services, and the extent of multi-program partici— pation. The sample consisted of approximately one-tenth of one percent of all veterans who had been separated from the Armed Forces between September 16, 1940 and August 31, 1950. The group was selected on the basis of a terminal-digit number from a one percent sample of separations mairfimined by the Veterans' Administration. Age, length of service, and date of discharge were obtained from the original separation records; State employment security and unemployment compensation agencies furnished the! information of the readjustment allowances program; and VA records2 PYTrvided data of other benefits and services received by the veterans. K 1The President's Commission on Veterans' Pensions, A Report of Veterans' Benefits in the United States, Readjustment Benefits: General S'W‘ve and A raisal, 84th Cong., 2d sess., House Committee Print No. 289. Staff Report IX, pt. A, Sept. 11, 1956 (Washington, D.C.: Govern- meht Printing Office, 1956), Appendix C, pp. 299-300. 2Ibid.. pp. 302-3. 35 Between September 16, 1940 and August 31, 1950 an estimated 15,879,000 World War II veterans returned to civil life after an average of about 2 1/2 years of service in the Armed Forces. By the end of the 5-year readjustment period following V-J Day, almost 9 out of 10 of these veterans had been in civil life at least 4 years. In general, they were relatively young, unmarried, of somewhat better than average education, and with comparatively little civilian work experience when they entered the Armed Forces. After their service, many were disabled, some needed special assistance to overcome occu- pational handicaps, substantial numbers of them were unemployed, and many planned to continue their delayed or interrupted education and job training. The report showed that three out of four veterans (11,683,000) had received benefits under at least one of the three programs (education and training, readjustment allowances, and loan guaranty and insurance) of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, Public Law 346. Cash bene— fits under the education and training program totaled about $10.4 billion. It is interesting to note that the 7,017,000 veterans (slightly over forty-four percent of all World War II veterans) who had been in educa- tion and training programs had used, on the average, less than one-third of their entitlement with only slightly more than four percent (311,000) (If them having exhausted their entitlement by 1950.2 The President's Commission on Veterans' Pensions undertook an analysis of the veterans' program to provide a general picture of the rweadjustment needs of veterans, their actual experiences during read- .justment and, in so far as possible, to measure how successfully veter- iins had reestablished themselves in civilian life and to what degree 'their present status was related to the use of major GI benefits. The Ibid., p. 300 2Ibid., pp. 300-1. 36 Commission found that little objective information was available when they began their study. To provide such data, the Commission arranged for a special survey of veterans in October, 1955, by the Bureau of the Census, in conjunction with its regular sample survey of the population-- the Current Population Survey.1 The primary purposes of this survey were (1) to determine the economic and social position of veterans and particularly of those veterans who are without service-connected disabilities, (2) to analyze the experience of veterans in their readjustment from mili- tary to civilian life, and to provide objective data on the effec- tiveness of readjustment benefits, and (3) to establish a base against which the status of disabled veterans would be measured In addition to permitting the comparisons between non-disabled and disabled veterans, the Census Bureau survey provided the Com- mission with basic information on the characteristics of veterans, including age, marital status, employment status and occupation before entering the Armed Forces, wartime experience, period of war service, use of readjustment benefits, place of residence, prewar and postwar education and work experience, income, use of hospitals, and days lost by illness. Some of these characteristics were ob- tained from individual control cards maintained by the Bureau of the Census for the population surveys; others through the special questionnaire developed by the Commission.2 The survey covered about 7,900 male veterans in the stratified iirea sample of 25,000 households in the Census monthly population survey anclapproximately 7,100 completed schedules were obtained for tabula— ting.3 It showed that during the early postwar years a substantial htnnber of veterans were either unemployed or not in the labor force. 171e cushioning effect of the education and training programs were re-' \.. ‘Vealed as being of major importance. X 1Ibid., p. 73. 2Ibid., Appendix B, p. 195. 3Ibid., p. 195. 37 Unquestionably, the availability of the GI Bill benefits encour- aged many veterans to attend school or take training rather than « seek jobs. Others chose training because of the difficulty of find- ing jobs. The withdrawal of both groups from the labor force helped ease the impact of postwar unemployment.1 The younger veterans, those who were less than twenty-five years old in 1945, made the greatest use of education and training allowances. Many of the veterans in this age group had entered service before com- pleting their education or before they had formed definite job attach- ments. These veterans were more likely to desire additional education or training.2 When comparing the jobs veterans held before entering service with those held at the time of the 1955 survey, it was found that a very large number of veterans had shifted into fields of work unrelated to their pre-war occupations. In most cases, these shifts were to jobs requiring more skill, education, or experience than the veteran posses- sed bef0re entering the Armed Forces. Veterans who used GI training benefits were in general more likely to shift into new occupational fields than those who did not take training, and more likely to shift into higher-paid occupations (professional, managerial, or skilled).3 ”Some of the conclusions drawn from the survey were: (1) As a group, the veterans for whom the GI Bill was created have established themselves successfully in civilian life. (2). Veterans of World War II, particularly those in the younger age groups are more likely than nonveterans to be working in those occupations which are highest paid and generally associated with higher social status. 'Ibid., p 55 2Ipid., p 69 3 38 (3) Veterans in each age group have completed about two more years of formal education than nonveterans and his [sic]_higher average education is directly linked to his more favorable occupational position. There is also evidence that GI training not involving formal education has been of value. Among veterans with a specified amount of formal education, those who used GI training tend to be in better jobs. (4) The median earned income of veterans in a given age group is higher than for nonveterans. The favored economic position of veterans has one other inter- esting implication. As a relatively high-income group, making up up a large part of the labor force, veterans in a decade or two from now will constitute the group contributing most to Federal revenues, at least on a per capita basis. Future benefits to vet— erans, in large part, will represent largely a redistribution of income between different groups of veterans. In its general appraisal of the education and training program the Commission report states: The veterans' educational program was a major contribution to the national welfare, and the country would be weaker educationally, economically, and in terms of national defense, if educators, vet- erans' organizations, the President and the Congress had not seen fit to embark upon this new and momentous educational enterprise.2 In 1951, a study was done by Raymond Mulligan to compare the socio—economic background of veterans and non-veterans attending Indiana University in relation to the total population in the state of Indiana. He found, among other things, that the farming, semi-skilled and un- skilled groups did not, or were not able to, use the GI Bill in propor- tion to their numbers in the state and tentatively hypothesized that: . in general, the absence of talented students from white collar and skilled groups in institutions of higher learning is due, on the whole, to economic rather than cultural factors, but that, 'Ibid., pp. 143 and 145. 2The President's Commission on Veterans' Pensions, Readjustment _epefits: Education and Training and Employment and Unemployment, pp, 21_,. D. 119. W 39,- in general, the absence of talented students from farming, semi- skilled and unskilled groups in institutions of higher learning is due, on the whole, to cultural factors rather than to purely eco- nomic factors.1 Several studies have dealt with the veteran's success as a stu- dent.2 Many persons, educators and national leaders alike, had expressed fears that the influx of veterans into colleges and universities would mean a lowering of educational standards. Some felt that many GI's would attend only to get the subsistence grants, and, on the other hand, that many schools would not be able to resist the dollars represented by the veterans and would drop admission standards. Others felt that the GI's were too old to learn and that they would not be able to cope with . authority. I These fears were widely demonstrated to be unfounded. In one typical study of the performance of some 2,400 veterans attending Brook— lyn College from 1946 to 1949, Gideonse found that "at each point of Progression in the college course veterans were doing better than non- veterans." This study was especially significant as veterans had been admitted, at Brooklyn as at most other colleges and universities, on the basis of lower qualifying scores than non-veterans.3 1Raymond A. Mulligan, "Socio-Economic Background and College Enrollment," American Sociological Review, XVI, No. 2 (1951), p. 196. 2Among these in addition to those cited are Louis M. Hansen and Donald G. Paterson, "Scholastic Achievement of Veterans." School and Society, LXIX, No. 1786 (1949), pp. l95-7; Clark Tibbitts and WQOdrow W. Hunter, "Veterans and Non-Veterans at the University of Michigan," School and Society, LXV, No. 1689 (1947), pp. 347-350. 3Harry D. Gideonse, "Educational Achievements of Veterans at 228011yn College,‘I The Educational Record, XXXI, No. 4 (1958), pp. 40 The Educational Testing Service, in the early 1950's, examined the records of 10,000 veteran and non-veteran students in sixteen col- leges. This study also found that the veteran did as well as or better than the non-veteran student. Age and experience were among factors playing a part in superior achievement by veterans. This study also discovered that students from families whose incomes were under $2,000 a year did better than students whose families earned more. The authors, Fredericksen and Shrader, concluded: It is hard to escape the impression that the over-achieving student is the one who has the most to overcome in the way of economic and social barriers.1 Olson, in his 1968 analysis of the GI Bill, described the veteran: As a student the veteran was serious, mature, and hard working. Beyond that, the early predictions of what he would be like proved misleading. Almost all studies have concluded that the veteran earned higher grades than did his nonveteran classmate. Thirty per— cent of all veterans were married and ten percent had children when they started their education, yet these veterans usually earned higher grades than single veterans. A study of the class of 1949 by Fortune magazine concluded that contrary to expectation that veterans would be impatient with authority, "just the opposite" was true. President Conant of Harvard admitted that the veterans were "the most mature and promising students Harvard has ever had."2 Another indication that the GI Bill was successful and was in the Publ ic interest came from a 1963 study by Yoder. He examined a random sanwrle of 1000 veterans, educated'under the GI Bill, who had appeared 1Norman Fredericksen and W. B. Shrader, Adjustment to College-- fl_§$£1gy of 10,000 Veteran and Non—Veteran Students in Sixteen American %§I%§%ge§_(Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1952), pp. 2Keith W. Olson, A Historical Analysis of the G.I. Bill and Its REIaizionship to Higher Education, Cooperative Research Project No. 2-436 W‘acuses Syracuse University Institute of Research, 1968), pp. lO-l. 41 in the 1960-61 edition of Who's Who in America. All of them were under forty-six years of age while ninety-four percent of the men listed in Who's Who are older than this. Twenty percent of these veterans indi- cated that they likely would not have continued their education after World War II had it not been for the GI Bill. It is interesting to note that this is the same percentage as that found by Fredericksen in the early 1950's.1 Emens, in 1965, "looked at a new generation of Americans--many of them sons and daughters of G.I. Bill educated veterans--who are taking their first steps in higher education. . . . For as the rich attainments of the G.I. Bill have shown, education begets education."2 He also pointed out the financial success of the GI Bill, both to the individual and to society. With higher incomes, the G.I. Bill beneficiaries are also in- 5 evitably paying higher taxes. Estimates based on Census and Internal Revenue data show that income added by G.I. Bill training produces tax payments of about $1 billion a year to the U.S. Treasury and that this amount will increase as the incomes of veterans continue pull ahead of non—veterans. This means that the $14 billion cost of the educational provisions of the G. I. Bill has already been well repaid to the Nation. That education is one of the soundest economic investments.can therefore be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Inost skeptical critic.3 In 1970, Donald Johnson, the Administrator of Veteran Affairs, madee similar observations about the GI Bill. He commented: 1Amos Yoder, "Lessons of the GI Bill,” Phi Delta Kappan, XLIV, No. 7 (1963), pp. 342-5. 2John R. Emens, "Education Begets Education: The G.I. Bill Twenty Years Later,‘I American Education, I, No. 8 (1965), p. 12. 3fluid, p. 12. 42 Perhaps the question, "What has this cost the country?" might 3 be rephrased, “What will this pay the country?" A recent Department of Labor report estimates that a man with a college degree will earn $201,000 more in his working lifetime than one with only high school training. Using the present tax rate, as applied to an average mar- ried man with two children who works for 35 years, the report esti- mated that the Federal income tax to be paid on this additional income during his lifetime will be about eight times the cost to the government of his GI education.1 Johnson also pointed to the importance of the GI Bill to adult education. Though he revealed a very constricted view of pre-war programs of adult education. "Adult education" prior to World War II had been confined pri— marily to minor avocational fields such as music appreciation, traveler's French, etc. The realization that mature people could enjoy and succeed in a more serious type of instruction brought about the great boom in adult education today. Most major colleges and many smaller schools now offer a wide range of courses, some bearing degree credits, to the adult members of their communities. Summary There seems to be general agreement that the GI Bill functioned effectively to alleviate the problem of educational shortages created by the war, made it possible for every veteran to equip himself for the most useful employment of which he was capable, made it possible for him to enjoy the amenity products of higher education, and to ease the social and economic disorganization which would likely have accompanied demobi- lizatrion by providing for the orderly readjustment of the individual vateran to civilian life. 1Donald E. Johnson, "A Quarter Century of the G.I. Bill,‘I -§£I!!21_and Society, XCVIII, No. 2325 (1970), p. 228. 21bid., p. 228. 43 Scholarly studies have shown that individuals with higher levels of education are likely to receive more income, have a broader range of vocations, have greater social mobility, have a richer and more inter- esting life, and have children who are more likely to desire and achieve a high educational level. The studies previously made of veterans show that, as a group, they have generally been successful in their adjustment to civilian life. Many chose to pursue further education or training rather than seek employment immediately. This tendency greatly eased the problems of demobilization. In general, those who used the education and train- ing program were more likely to shift to a more prestigious and better paying job. These studies, however, were broad surveys, and the more com- plete ones undertaken by the government were done so soon after the end of the war that it was not possible to assess whether these apparent gains were temporary or whether they would hold true or perhaps loom even larger over a long period of time. The present study replicates some por- tions of these earlier ones in addition to looking at several additional factors and at the veterans' families for possible effects upon them. The male high school graduates in the five years immediately preceding WOrld War II in one mid-American community were chosen as a representa- tive population for this more intensive study, the purpose of which is to assess the impact, a quarter century after the termination of World War II, of the education and training benefits of the GI Bill for the veteran, his family and his community in one reasonably representative mid-American community. CHAPTER IV THE COMMUNITY WHERE THE STUDY WAS MADE Introduction . Previous studies have shown that the GI Bill was successful in cushioning the impact of the abrupt cessation of hostilities. These studies also have shown that those veterans who utilized its educational benefits were more likely to get a better job. However, the most com— prehensive surveys were conducted before the final deadline of training eligibility had been reached. Many additional veterans decided at the last minute to use their training benefits. This study was designed to probe in depth, and in a specific community, the lives of men thirty to thirty-five years after their graduation from the community high school to assess the impact of the GI Bill in making possible education and training beyond the high school level. Thus it should provide some data regarding the argument of Dr. Floyd Reeves, spokesman for many, that the nation would be more benefited by h(”3113ing the veteran advance his education than by giving money to CoT‘Porations for the purpose of hiring untrained veterans. my Pursuit of this kind of study required a community that was reasonably representative of communities across the United States in growth rates, age distribution, level of education, economic resources, 44 ~ 45 ethnic composition and with no atypical conditions that would alter radically its stability or representativeness. It also required a com- munity in which the investigator was well enough known to be granted com- plete access to preliminary records—athe high school transcripts of the population to be studied., The community chosen was Danville,_Illinois. Danville's early history was very similar to many other American communities and it continued as a generally prototypic community. In October, 1945, P. D. Converse and Arthur W. Baum described Danville well. Danville is Corn Belt, smallish, Middle West, neither too young nor too old. Main Street is a main street. Lincoln practiced law there, the Kickapoos camped there, the river is the Vermilion,-and the seasons are hot and cold. The big hotel does not have the best food, the lawns are mowed, and Uncle Joe Cannon, Danville's foremost citizen, never paid more than thirty-five dollars for his suits. People sit on the front porch and watch fireflies in July. Danville has seen several industries ither and fade and new ones form and grow. It is, in short, America.1 When traders visited the region that is now Vermilion County in the late eighteenth century it was Miami country. The inhabitants were the Pottawatomies, younger brothers of the Miamis, and the Kickapoos. After the Kickapoos and the Pottawatomies had established them- selves in the valley of the Wabash, it was mutually agreed between them and the Miamis that the river should be the dividing line. The Pottawatomies and the Kickapoos were to occupy the west and the Miamis were to remain, undisturbed, on the east and south sides. Some historians believe that Kickapoo State Park, six miles west of Danville, is the culmination of the prophecy of a Kickapoo Indian, Chief Keannekeuk, that his name would become known world wide. . . . The land at this time was largely open prairie with timber grow- ing in points in some of the river bottoms along the Vermilion between where Danville now stands and the Indiana state line. The prairies were often burned over, but the grass sprang up again after each fire. \ 1 1P. D. Converse and Arthur W. Baum, ”You Can Still Do It Today," §Elflirday Evening Post, (October 6, 1945), p. 22. , 2Katherine Stapp and W. I. Bowman, History Under Our Feet (Dan- ;11glge, Illinois: Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1968), 46 In a literal sense, Vermilion County owes its beginnings to salt. As early as 1706 the French referred to the "Salines of the Vermilion" in their records. The records of the Jesuit Fathers of Montreal show another reference in 1750, the year that these fearless priests visited the Salines and found ”the largest Indian settlement within a six-day journey." This Kickapoo village, which stretched along both sides of the river for some distance, showed an advanced civilization with some rude cabins instead of wigwams, and patches of pumpkins and corn en- closed by brush fences.1 In 1801 Joseph Barron, William Henry Harrison's interpreter with the Indians, filed an affidavit in which he told of visiting the Salines and finding no evidence of recent occupancy. The lure of salt was a powerful one and Barron returned with a party to locate and exploit the Salines on September 11, 1819; the white man had come to stay. The salt works that were founded continued to be operated until 1840. Dan Beckwith, for whom the community was named, envisioned that Danville would become a bustling river town. He donated twenty acres of land and used his surveying tools to plot the town into lots. It was Beckwith and Guy Smith's first gift of land that led to the selection of the site, a former Indian camping ground, for the newly organized seat of justice. But it was a close call for Dan- ville as the county seat. When the second court session was held tat Butler's Point on March 18, 1826, a group of commissioners ap— pointed by the governor to select the site reported in favor of a location near the Salt Works, about five miles west of Danville. The choice wasn't a popular one with the majority of citizens, and a second commission, made up of Springfield citizens, was ap- Poirrted. Viewing the Salt Works, Brook's Point, Denmark, Kyger's Mill land Butler's Point, the three decided to accept the offer of Beckwith and Smith. R 1Ipid., p. 7. 47 The sale of lots was advertised at Vandalia, the state capital, for April 101 1827. This date, then, marks the official founding of Danv1lle. Prospective buyers who came to view the area before the auction, which netted $922.77 or about $22 a lot, saw nothing but barren country- side. Those who looked closely might have noticed Beckwith's trading post, hidden by the bluff at the end of West Main Street. Before long the ring of axes could be heard throughout the new city. The first per- manent courthouse was built in 1832; this building was destroyed by fire in 1872. A new structure was built in 1876 and, in order to avoid a bondraising referendum, it was torn down to the cornerstone and remodeled in 1912. The first postoffice was established in May, 1827, in one room at the home of Amos Williams. 2 Representativeness on Major Indicators The growth of Danville has not been spectacular but has been continuous since its founding as shown by Table 1 from the United States Census of Population. Table 2 gives comparable information for the United States as a whole. Data from the 1940 Census show Danville's labor force to have been Similar‘in its distribution to those of the state of Illinois, the North Central Region of the United States and the country as a whole. (See Table 3.) The relatively large number of workers employed on Public eflnergency work in 1940 is attributable to a combination of factors. ‘ 1Ipid., p. 54. 2Ibid., p. 54. ¥ 48 Table 1. Population of Danville from 1840 (sixth decennial census of the United States and Danville's first) to 1970.a Increase Over Census Year Population Preceding Census Number Percent 1970 42,570 714 1.7 1960 41,856 3,992 10.5 1950 37,864 945 2.6 1940 36,919 154 0.4 1930 36,765 2,989 8.8 1920 33,776 5,905 21.2 1910 27,871 11,517 70.4 1900 16,354 4,863 42.3 1890 11,491 3,758 48.6 1880 7,733 2,982 62.8 1870 4,751 3,119 191.1 1860 1,632 896 121.7 1850 736 233 46.3 1840 503 aU.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, United §E§E§§ Census of Population: 1960, Vol. I, Characteristics of the Population, pt. 15, Illinois, p. 11. b1970 data from the EncyClopedia Britannica, 1971 Yearbook, States Statistical Supplement, p. 11. Table 2. census) to 1970.a 49 Population of the United States from 1840 (sixth decennial Increase Over Census Year Population Preceding Census Number Percent 1970b 204,765,770 21,480,761 11.7 1960 183,285,009 29,051,775 18.8 1950 154,233,234 3,610,480 2.4 1940 150,622,754 12,183,685 8.8 1930 138,439,069 32,728,449 30.9 1920 105,710,620 13,738,354 14.9 1910 91,972,266 15,977,691 21.0 1900 75,994,575 13,046,861 20.7 1890 62,947,714 12,791,931 25.5 1880 50,155,783 11,597,412 30.1 1870 38,558,371 7,115,050 22.6 1860 31,443,321 8,251,445 35.6 1850 23,191,876 6,122,423 35.9 1840 17,069,453 4,203,433 32.7 aU.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, The Eight- genth Decennial Census of the United States: 1960, Pppulation, Vol. 1, Characteristics of the Population, pt. A, Number of Inhabitants, Table A, p. x; U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of the Cen- SUS, A_Century of P0pulation Growth from the First Census of the United States to the Twelfth, 1790-1900, Table 9, p. 55. b 1970 data from the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1971 Yearbook, States Statistical Supplement, p. 8. 50 .emm .e .ezeH-eeeeeFe .N .oe .eeepe_=eea age to moepmeeaeoeceeu .HH ._e> .eeweepeeea .oemF umwumwm vaw:: 9.3 $0 mzmcmu chmmuwxwm .mzmcmo $5.... $0 SMQLzmz omULmEEoo $0 ucwEuLman .m.=w w._ e._ m.— o.o m.m m.w ¢.m N.__ ¢.op wFPw>cco m.m N.— m.P m.o m.w m.~ m.m N.m N.m mwo:m_FH m.m w.P N.N m.@ m._— m.o_ m.N— P.m— m.N_ chpcwo pmmm :ugoz v.m N.— m._ ¢.m m.m N.w n.m m.m o.m mmgmpm umpwcz meEmm msz Payee mpmewm msz Fmpop mpcswm ope: Peach mgoxcoz 382 mgmxeoz cmucmvgwaxm xcoz mewxmmm m.m w.“ F.m m.mm m.om N.Nw —.mm m.wm _.Pm m__w>cwo m.m o.o v.m ¢.Nw m.¢m m.mw o.mm m.mm N.mm mwochFH ¢.N m.v m.m m.mm «.mm N.mw «.mm w.wm w.mm Facucmu pmmm :pgoz o.m N.m w.¢ m.mw N.mw o.mw ¢.mm o.mn N.Nm mwpmpm vmuwc: umEmm mpmz —muop mFmEmm ch2 Peace meEmm chz Pouch xgoz scammngN uansa xeoz aucmemEm owpaza co poz mused Loam; c? gm>o w e_ cowperaoa to pcmocma co ucmucma umzohaEM “smegma m.mppw>cmo mo zuwo was .mwo:w__H to mumpm .cowmmg Fccucmo pmem spec: .mmpmpm copes: ecu Lot oemp c? mote; Loam_ we“ to moppMmeuowgmcu .m m~awh 51 Most of Danville's early economy had been dependent upon coal mines and railroads. The mines were becoming unprofitable in the years immedi- ately preceding the depression of the 1930's and had it not been for the efforts of community leaders, chaos could have resulted. In 1928 the first meeting was held to explore the growing prob- lem of dwindling mine employment. The next few months were spent in investigating what had been done in other communities, and in October, 1929, a plan was presented at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Danville Chamber of Commerce. The board proceeded to organize the Danville Industrial Foundation, later succeeded by New Industries, In- corporated, for the purpose of raising money to seek a diversification of manufacturing companies to provide a more healthy base for the com- rnunity's future.1 The full results of this effort had not yet been realized in 1940. Like other communities of America, Danville suffered severe .eewpe_=eea .owmp ”mwpmpm vawcs msp to mzmcmo meccwuwo spammpgmwm one mNPP .a .mF .pa .mpcmpwnmscH mo gossaz H ._.o> .ommp ”coswpzngn— $0 $5ch amam—5U mg» to :wmcSm .moLmEEou we #:msuxmamo .m.:m New.me enm.em Nam.mw mem.mw eme.mm Pme.em mwo.m$ www.mw eEooeH eeweoz e.mp _.n m.N e.~ o.m_ o.NF P.m e.N ee>o eee ooo.o_w m.m~ m.NF N.e N.m _.ON N.e_ 3.5 0.4 mmm.mw op coo.aw N.op m.e _.e e.m N.o_ m.m m.e m.m mmm.e$ 68 800.8% m.m_ m.o_ 0.x N.e m.N_ N.o_ m.e m.e mmm.mw op coo.mm e..F m._P e.ep m.e_ o.F_ N.o_ _.N_ _.o_ mam.ew op ooo.ew w.m F.__ m._N o.o~ m.m m.m e.m_ m.e_ www.mm op ooo.mw _.N m.m m.FN m.o~ m.m N.m N.mp N.wp mmm.mw op coo.Nw m.e m.__ w.P_ m.mp m.n m.o_ e.e~ _.ep mmm._w ee coo._w N.e m.wp N.m e.mp e.m w.m_ “.4? m.- mom % op PW o.oop o.oo_ o.oo_ o.oo_ o.oo_ o.oo_ o.oo_ o.oo_ erepee .ew>weeH .e_>eeeH .ee>eeeH .ew>weeH ._oce: a moe_w5ea ._eee= a meerEee ._eee= a mew_w5ea ._ece= a wee—tsee moe_w28e mew_FEee mo__WEee moerEee mmm_ mam, mma_ mam, e__w>eeo meeeem emcee: m.mwochFH .mppw>cmo Ucm mmumpm Umpwcz L8. m—msz>.:v:_. “Eva—.925 Ucw mm._._..:.=m.+ mo mmm— bcw owe. 5. $502; .m 2.38. 55 Table 7. Distribution of population by levels of income and by sex, United States and Danville, Illinois, 1959.a United States Danville Male Female Male Female Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 $1 to 999 14.7 42.2 12.8 41.7 1,000 to 1,999 11.9 18.9 9.3 19.9 2,000 to 2,999 10.5 14.4 7.9 15.7 3,000 to 3,999 11.3 11.4 11.0 12.7 4,000 to 4,999 12.6 7.0 15.9 5.0 5,000 to 5,999 12.6 3.2 15.4 2.5 6,000 to 6,999 8.7 1.4 8.8 0.9 7,000 to 9,999 10.9 1.2 12.1 1.2 10,000 and Over 6.6 0.6 6.8 0.4 Median Income $4,142 $1,424 $4,585 $1,374 aU.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, The Eight- eenth Decennial Census of the United States: 1960, Population, Vol. I, Characteristics of the Population, pt. 1, pp. 230-1; and pt. 15, p. 332. 56 Table 8. Median years of schooling completed by males and females in the United States and city of Danville, Illinois, in 1960, 1950 and 1940.a United States Danville Male 1960 10.3 10.5 1950 9.0 9.0 1940 8.3 8.5 Female 1960 10.9 10.6 1950 9.6 9.5 1940 8.4 8.6 aU.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, The Eight- eenth Decennial Census of the United States: 1960, Population, Vol. I, Charwacteristics of the Population, pt. 1, p. 207; Census of the Popula- tion: 1950, Vol. I, Number of Inhabitants, pt. 13, p. 93; Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940, Population, Vol. II, Characteris- ticzlof'the Population, pt. 1, U.S. Summary, pp. 85-6, and pt. 2, P. 3. 57 was a reasonably representative American community in which to pursue a study of male veterans some thirty to thirty-five years after their graduation from high school. Summar Despite the fact that numerous studies have been made to examine the impact of the GI Bill, no studies have been found which focus on a specific community in an effort to assess the intended humane and social effects of the GI Bill on veterans, their families, and their community as a unit. It was necessary to have access to high school transcripts and to be able to secure the help of many people in locating current ad- dresses of high school graduates to be included in the survey. It was therefore advantageous for the writer to conduct the study in her cur- rent home community, if it met the criteria of being a reasonably rep— resentative mid-American community. A thorough examination of the census records and histories of Danville, Illinois, supported the assump- tBM1'that Danville was a reasonably representative mid-American community in whicfli such a study could be undertaken. CHAPTER V METHODOLOGY Development of the Instrument After the decision had been made to do a very detailed survey of Danville High School male graduates from the classes of 1936-40, it was necessary to design a survey instrument1 that would provide the needed data. It was decided to incorporate a partial replication of the special survey done by the Bureau of the Census in October, 1955,2 in the total survey. Some data were available from the veterans' high school tran- scripts and school records. Permission to make copies of the high school transcripts and grade point averages of the male graduates of the classes of 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, and 1940 was obtained from the administration officials in Danville District 118. Danville High School officials de- termine: a four-year average for each student; these averages are then Placed 'hn rank order and quartiles are established. Since this study does not: include female graduates, the grade point averages of the males were ranked separately to ascertain quartiles. 1 . Append1x B,, p. 163. B . 2The President's Commission on Veterans' Pensions, Readjustment ~§flSILE§5__ General Survey and Appraisal, op. cit., Appendix B, pp. 203-4. 58 59 Information included on all Danville High School transcripts in- cludes age, date of graduation, and occupation of the father. In order to make comparisons between the work levels of fathers, respondents and their children, a scale of occupational prestige was developed by adapt- ing the Socioeconomic Index for Occupations in the Detailed Classification of the Bureau of the Census: 1950 and the Hall-Jones Scale of Occupa- tional Prestige for Males.1 The categories decided upon were: (1) professional, including the traditional professions requiring high level college or university training, (2) executive or owner of a business, implying a flexible income for owners and probably bonuses and/or stock shares for those executives in salaried positions, (3) other white collar, occupations normally rewarded by a fixed weekly or monthly salary, (4) skilled, blue collar workers requiring special types of training and usually compensated on a weekly or hourly rate, (5) semi-skilled, requiring less training and normally receiving an hourly wage, and (6) unskilled laborers, requiring no special training and usUally paid by the hour or by the job. Questions were included in the instrument to verify the age and date of graduation of the respondent and the job title of the father. The high school transcripts were found to be accurate in these respects. Additional questions were carefully formulated to minimize misunderstand- ing by the respondents. The proposed survey was then mimeographed and field tested on twenty-five males with backgrounds similar to those of ‘— 1See Oppenheim, Abraham Naftali, Questionnaire Design and Atti— Iyge Measurement (New York: Basic Books, 1966), pp. 262—284. 60 the population to be surveyed. Further refinements were then made, e question was given a coding number, and the survey was printed. Collection of the Data: Mailing and Return of the Questionnaires Current addresses of many of the graduates to be surveyed wer obtained from class officers who had recently held a class reunion; 0 were acquired from families and friends of the graduates. Several of men were known to have lost their lives in combat in World War II whi a number of others had died in recent years. The extreme mobility fo in our society compounded the problem of locating current addresses. Knowing that a truly random sample would be impossible to obt a great effort was made to locate or account for each of the 736 grad ates in the population. Fifty-five were known to be dead and 245 pro impossible to locate. Addresses were found for 438, 60 per cent of t total population, and questionnaires were mailed to them. Four of th surveys were returned by the post office marked "address unknown" and were considered as undeliverable. Second mailings were made to those who failed to respond (that is, did not return the questionnaire), wi in a four-week period. Three of the surveys were returned by widows, raising] the number of known dead to 58. Seven of the surveys were re turned too late to be included in the computer analysis. Two hundrec $1Will-seven usable responses, constituting a 61 per cent return of ti SUVVGYS nuailed out and 36 per cent of the total population, provide 1 data for' this study. 61 Questionnaires were mailed to 41 cities in Illinois in additi to Danville. Thirty-two other states and one foreign country, Peru, also represented. Two hundred twenty-six of the men still reside in Danville. This constitutes 31 per cent of the total population and 5 per cent of the surveys mailed. Many phone calls were made to Danvil residents to verify addresses, explain the survey in greater detail, appeal for assistance. Despite this greater effort in Danville, ther were slightly more total responses from out of town, 64 per cent from other locations and 59 per cent from Danville. A computer analysis was run on the items available from high school transcripts: (1) year of graduation, (2) age, (3) occupation the father,and was also run on the quartiles in the high school gradu class after they had been recalculated for males only. This analysis showed no significant differences between the groups of individuals w did not respond, whose addresses were unknown, who were known dead, 0 who did respond to the survey. It is therefore assumed that the resp are a relatively representative sample of the total population. A§§umptions There are many articles in the literature concerning the domi influencelof parents upon the educational and vocational choices of t children. Based upon the review of this literature and the theories found therein, the assumption was made that two major factors would i fluence educational and vocational choices of respondents. The first factor, cxnnmon to veterans and non-veterans alike, would be the level 0f Parental education and occupation which would tend to be repeated 62 by the respondents. The second factor, by which respondents would be differentiated, would be the GI Bill, resulting from the intervening w and its impact upon veterans who availed themselves of its benefits, a that some of the kinds of impacts would be in terms of the level of ed cation of the veteran himself and of his children, the level of income of the veteran, the participation of the veteran in civic, political a1 cultural affairs, the continued pursuit by the veteran of knowledge or skills through formal instruction, and the occupation chosen by the ve' eran himself and by his children. It was the impact of the GI Bill upc these variables that was tested. Preparation and Analysis of Data In order to have a means of comparison for seeking to ascertail whether or not participation in the education and training program of the GI Bill had made any differences in selected aspects of the lives 1 individual veterans, their children and their community over a period 1 three decades, the survey respondents were divided into six groups: (' veterans with no post-secondary education or training (under the GI Bi' or otherwise), (2) veterans with post-secondary education or training before service who did not use the GI Bill for further education, (3) veterans with no post-secondary education or training before service wl used the GI Bill, (4) veterans who had post-secondary education or tra' ing before service and who also used the GI Bill for further education (5) non-veterans with no post-secondary education or training, and (6) non-veterans with post-secondary education or training (but, of course without assistance from the GI Bill). 63 A code book was constructed for the questionnaire. Each question- naire had been assigned a code number before mailing so that individual surveys could be identified without the use of names. Positive identi- fication of individuals was essential because of the information from high school transcripts which had to be added to the survey data. The questionnaire was hand coded on a code sheet which was proofread for accuracy. The coded data were then punched on IBM cards for data process- ing. Printouts of IBM card decks were made on an NCR computer in the Danville Junior College Computer Center. Printout sheets were checked carefully for errors which were corrected on duplicate decks of IBM cards before being processed. The Control Data Corporation 6500 computer at the Michigan State University Computer Center was used to obtain frequency counts of the responses. It was also used to test by the use of chi square the statis— tical significance of the relationship between the training levels of the respondents and the 120 variables included in the survey. The chi square analysis was not useful in some categories because of the small frequen- cies and the large number of zero cells; thus on recommendation of the research department consultant at the University percentages were gener- ally employed to report and compare the results. Various kinds of interrelationships between the variables were also examined. An electronic calculator, rather than the computer, was used to figure the percentages generally used in reporting the results. 64 Summar Permission was obtained to make copies of the high school tran- scripts of the graduates of the Danville, Illinois, High School classes of 1936-1940 which showed age, date of graduation and occupation of the father. Grade point averages were also acquired from school officials. Questions to be included in the survey instrument were carefully formu- lated to minimize misunderstanding by the respondents, field tested, modified and printed. A great effort was made to locate or account for each of the 736 graduates in the population. Addresses were found for 438, 60 per cent of the total population, and questionnaires were mailed to them. Two hundred sixty-seven usuable responses, constituting a 61 per cent return of the surveys mailed and 36 per cent of the total population, provide the data for this study. A computer analysis, run on the items available from the high school transcripts and on the quartiles in the high school graduating class recalculated for males only, showed no significant differences between the groups of individuals who did not respond, whose addresses were unknown, who were known dead, or who did not respond to the survey. It was assumed that, had there been no GI Bill, parental educa- tion and occupational level would tend to have been repeated by the respondents. However, the GI Bill was assumed to have had a differen- tiating impact on those veterans who used it. Responses were coded and the coded data were punched on IBM cards forckrta processing. The Control Data Corporation 6500 computer at 65 Michigan State University was used, where cell size justified doing so, to test the statistical significance of the relationship between the training levels and the 120 variables by the use of chi square. The percentages generally used in reporting the results were computed on an electronic calculator. CHAPTER VI FINDINGS Introduction This study has attempted to answer the general question: what has been the impact of the GI Bill? The three components of that ques- tion are (1) what has been the effect on the veteran himself, (2) what has been the effect, if any, on his family, and (3) what has been the ‘hnpact, if any, on his community. In order to make an assessment of true impact of the GI Bill it was necessary to have much personal infor~ nurtion about each individual comprising the survey population. For example: (1) was he a veteran, (2) what kind of job does he have, (3) what kind of education or training does he have, (4) when did he receive 1t, (53) did he use the GI Bill, (6) how and why did he use it, (7) how much nuaney does he make, (8) does he take part in political activities, (9) does he serve in positions of community leadership, (10) does he CODtPTEHJte time or money to civic causes, (11) what kind of leisure- time acrtivities does he enjoy, (12) how many children does he have, (13) what kirid of education does he want them to have, (14) what kind of vocaticnis have they chosen. 'These factors are closely interrelated and it would be naive to assume tfliat they could be sorted out and assigned as a relationship to 66 67 just the veteran himself, to just his family, or to just the community in which he resides. Some, such as a high level of income, may be assumed to be a benefit to all three, while others may be said to prin- cipally affect only one. The information gathered from the 267 respondents comprises the data used to describe what has happened to the male graduates of the Danville, Illinois, High School classes of 1936-1940, and whether and how the education and training provisions of the GI Bill affected them, their families, and their community during the past three decades. Profile of Respondents The respondents consisted of 227 veterans and 40 non—veterans. There were 51 veterans comprising 22.5 per cent of the veteran group with no post—secondary education or training, either before or after their periods of service, 56 veterans (24.6 per cent) with post-secondary edu- cation or training before service who did not use the GI Bill, 54 vet- erans (23.8 per cent) with no post—secondary education or training be- fore service who pursued further education under the GI Bill; and 66 veterans (28.6 per cent) with post-secondary education or training before service who also pursued further education under the GI Bill; 28 of the non-veterans (70 per cent) had post-secondary education or training while 12 (30 per cent) had no post-secondary education or training. One set of the questions on the survey was directed to veterans only and had been asked before in the special survey of veterans conducted in October, 1955, by the Bureau of the Census.1 The data obtained from 1The President's Commission on Veterans' Pensions, Readjustment Benefits: General Survey and Appraisal, op. cit., Appendix B. pp. 203-4. 68 these questions in the 1972 Danville study show that 73.83 per cent of the veterans who did not use the GI Bill and 66.67 per cent of those who did were working full-time the year before they were inducted into service.1 An additional 7.50 per cent of those who used the bill and 5.61 per cent of those who did not were working part-time jobs. In the group of veterans who used the GI Bill educational benefits, 30.83 per cent were attending school fullrtime as were 20.56 per cent of the vet- erans who did not use the GI Bill. (See Table 9.) Table 9. Distribution of veterans according to employment or schooling the year before entering service. Veterans Using Veterans Not Using Bill Bill (n = 120) (0 =107) % % Worked Full-time 66.67 73.83 Worked Part-time 7.50 5.61 School Full-time 30.83 20.56 School Part-time 6.67 1.87 Correspondence Courses 0.83 -- The veterans who did not use the GI Bill were working before enter‘ing service at a higher level than veterans who used the bill with 3-74 [Der cent of the non-users being in the professions, 36.45 per cent having; skilled and 25.23 per cent having semi-skilled jobs. This X 1The reader should note that all data were obtained from survey l"eSponses and are subject to reporting error. 69 compared to 0.83 per cent in the professions, 15.83 per cent in skilled and 28.33 per cent in semi-skilled jobs among the veterans who used the GI Bill. (See Table 10.) Table 10. Distribution of veterans according to the type of job at which each worked the longest the year before entering service. Category of Pre- Veterans Using Veterans Not Using Induction Work Bill Bill (n = 120) (n = 107) % % Professional ' 0.83 3.74 Skilled 15.83 36.45 Semi-skilled 28.33 25.23 Unskilled 26.67 18.69 Unemployed 9.16 14.95 No Response 19.17 0.93 It is also significant to note that 48.60 per cent of the vet- envans who did not use the GI Bill returned to the same job or some kind 0f :iob as before service, 7.48 per cent took similar work with a dif- ferwent employer and 6.54 per cent established businesses of their own. The 'fact that a higher percentage of those veterans had pre-induction JObSi and that the jobs were at a higher level than those of the other vetencans is undoubtedly one reason that they did not use the educational bene'lFits of the GI Bill but were apparently satisfied with the skills they already had. Only 33.33 per cent of the veterans who used the GI 3111 l“eturned to the same employer or business, 1.67 per cent took 70 similar work with a different employer, and 1.67 per cent set up their own business. Thirty per cent indicated that they did not return to the same job or employer because they wanted to take education or train- ing. (See Table 11.) Table 11. Percentage of respondents who did or did not return to the same job or same kind of job as before service and reasons for not returning to same. Veterans Using Veterans Not Bill Using Bill (n = 120) (n = 107) % % Did return to same employer or similar job. 35.00 56.08 Returned to same employer business 33.33 48.60 Took similar work with a different employer 1.67 7.48 Did not return to same employer or similar job 65.00 43.92 Desired to take GI education or training 30.00 0.93 No previous regular job 15.00 14.95 Wanted to use skills acquired in service 7.50 8.41 Went into own business 1.67 6.54 Couldn't find job in his line 1.67 2.80 Not able to do former work 0.83 0.93 Other reason for not returning to same job or same kind of job 8.33 9.35 71 Almost half, 45.83 per cent, of the veterans who used the GI Bill indicated that they did so to prepare for a new trade, occupation, or profession while another 26.67 per cent desired to improve their skills in the work that they had previously done. Only 15.83 per cent were interested in improving their general education with no definite occupa- tion in mind while 15 per cent admitted that they took the training because of the cash allowance. (See Table 12.) Table 12. Reason given by veterans who used GI education or training benefits. —-‘3 _¥. All Veterans Veterans With Veterans Not Hav- Using Bill Education ing Education Before Before Service (n = 120) (n = 66) (n = 54) % % % To prepare for new trade, occupation or profession 45.83 46.97 44.44 To improve skill in work already done 26.67 27.27 25.93 Improve general education with no specific occu- pation in mind 15.83 18.18 12.96 Because of cash allowance 15.00 13.64 16.67 Trade related to hobbies or sparetime work at home 4.17 3.03 5.55 Other 8.33 7.58 9.26 Apparently those who needed the education most were the ones who used the GI Bill; it was a great social leveler as the veterans who had the lowest level jobs used its benefits to climb the occupational ladder. 72 Some of them, particularly in the group with no post-secondary education or training before induction into service, obtained higher level jobs that they considered satisfactory without completing the full course of study begun under the GI Bill. This group, therefore, moved into higher status occupations despite having the highest dropout rate from GI sponsored education. (See Table 13.) Table 13. Percentage of veterans who did or did not complete course of study started under GI Bill and stated reasons for non- completion. All Veterans Veterans With Veterans Not Hav- Using Bill Education ing Education Before Service Before Service N (n = 120) (n = 66) (,n = 54) % % % Completed course of study 78.33 89.39 64.81 Did not complete 21.67 10.61 35.19 Obtained satisfactory job WitfHJut completing 7.50 3.03 12.96 Couldri't live on VA allow- ance without working 4.17 3.03 5.55 Thought he had as much trairiing as he needed , 1.67 -- 3.70 Didn't: think training was dOlng him any good 1.67 —- 3.70 Other.reasons for stopping trairring 6.67 4.55 9.26 \ l'his study was only partially concerned with the same material as the earlier one. That study dealt only with veterans and was con- dUCted cnw a nationwide scale while this study dealt with all the male graduates of one community high school during the years l936-l940. The earlier study included veterans who were not high school graduates and veterans who were much younger at the time of the study than the group examined in this study. The general conclusions of the earlier study that are supported by the present one are (l) veterans generally are employed in jobs of a higher level than their jobs before entering service, (2) variations in occupation, income, and social status are closely related to differences in educational attainment, (3) GI education or training helped to raise the occupational level of veterans not merely by increasing their total amount of formal education, but also by encouraging them to take courses which helped them qualify for higher level jobs, (4) the income of vet- erans who used the training is greater than that of thOSe who did not. The earlier study broke the veterans into age groups. The income dif- ferences were less pronounced for veterans in the 35-44 year old group at the: time of the study (1955). Most of the males in the present study would liave been in the lower end of that age group. They were in the 50-59 aige group at the time of this study. As was indicated in the earlier study, the most direct evidence 01‘ the relationship between the training and the veteran's present Status 'is furnished by the veteran's own attitude concerning its value. In the present study one-third of the veterans indicated that without the GI echJcation or training they could not have gotten their present j°b° Ancrther 20.83 per cent said the training was used a great deal, 23°33 Per‘ cent said it was fairly useful, 6.67 per cent said it was used 001V a 1'1ttle, while 15.83 per cent reported that they were not using IJIIIII-.__ 74 it at all in their current jobs. (See Table 14.) These responses are similar to the responses in the earlier study, but show a higher per- centage of veterans making more use of their training. In the 1955 study nearly one-fourth, 23 per cent, of the veter- ans who used training indicated that their training was indispensable. Another 23.3 per cent said that the training was used a great deal, 15.3 per cent said that it was fairly useful, 9.7 per cent indicated that it was used only a little and 28.7 per cent indicated that it was not being used at all in current jobs. It is quite possible that many of the veterans who indicate no use of their training in their present jobs are the same ones who used the GI Bill for education or training related to hobbies or with no occupation in mind when the training was taken. An examination of high school transcripts and grade point aver- ages of the respondents revealed that neither the veterans nor the non- veterans were homogeneous groups. Both differed in academic achievement, as measured by their class rank, and by social status as indicated by the Cn:cupation of their fathers. In the veterans' group 22.03 per cent were giraduated in the upper quartile of their class, 21.59 per cent in the second quartile, 26.43 per cent in the third quartile, and 29.96 per Cen1t in the fourth quartile. In the non-veterans' group 15 per cent were grwaduated in the upper quartile, 20 per cent in the second quartile, 27°50 Fuer cent in the third quartile, and 37.50 per cent in the fourth quartiie,. Table 15 shows the comparison between veterans and non- Veteran s . 75 .omp .a ..pvo .no .Pmmeecaa< vcm zm>ezm chmcmw "mpmmwcmm pamEpmzncmwm ,mmpmpm capes: asp cw mpwamcmm .m:egmpm> to “comma < .mcovmcma .mcmcmum> co cowmmeEou m_p:mcvmoca mews NN.NN Pe.op mw.m_ N.wm _Fe pa eome pez _e.m eo.e Ne.e N.m eeppw_ e s_ee e58: No.em ma.- {mm.mN m.m_ _=eom= APcwee em.N_ NN.NN mw.om m.m~ _eoe peace a new: mm.mm mm.mm mm.mm o.mm new Seemeee coppem m>mc no: epsou mew2wmcp asp pzozpwziigose xgw> a e e e flew u ev Ame u e v AONF 1 es mow>gmm meoemm muw>cmm cowpmozcm mew>mz poz mcocmpw> mcommm cowumozvm new: mcmcwum> mcmewpm> PF< seepm Nam, exeepm mmm_ .now pcmmwga cw vow: coon mo; moccummmmm Pva Hm cue: emcwem mcwcPecp Lo __Fxm on“ pzzoe< .e~ mFQmH 76 Table 15. Percentage of Veterans and non-veterans who had been in each quartile of male students in their high school graduating classes. Upper Second Third Lower N Quartile Quartile Quartile Quartile Veterans 227 22.03 21.59 26.43 29.96 Non-Veterans 40 15.00 20.00 27.50 37.50 It should be noted that the distribution of non-veterans is more skewed to the lower end of the class rank than that of the veterans. This could have some influence upon the data relating to other differ- ences between veterans and non-veterans. The statistics show that 8.37 per cent of the veterans' fathers were engaged in a profession, 18.06 per cent were either executives or owners of their own businesses, 20.71 per cent were engaged in other white collar occupations, 28.63 per cent were skilled, 10.13 per cent were semi-skilled, and 14.10 per cent were unskilled. In the non-veteran group 12.50 per cent of the fathers were in the professions, 17.50 per cent were executives or owners of businesses, 15 per cent were engaged in other white collar occupations, 27.50 per cent were skilled, 10 per cent were semi-skilled and 17.50 per cent were unskilled. Thus non- veterans appear to include higher proportions of men whose fathers were at upper and lower occupational levels, with veterans more heavily rep- resented by fathers in middle level positions. (See Table 16.) Table 16. Occupational level of the fathers of veterans. 77 veterans and non- Father's Occupational Veteran Non-Veteran Level- (n = 227) (n = 40) % % Professional 8.37 12.50 Executive or Owner 18.06 17.50 Other White Collar 20.71 15.00 Skilled 28.63 27.50 Semi-skilled 10.13 10.00 Unskilled 14.10 17.50 A further examination of veterans shows that 22.50 per cent of those who used the GI Bill were in the upper quartile of their graduating class, 24.17 per cent in the second quartile, 24.17 per cent in the third quartile and 29.16 per cent in the fourth quartile. 0f the veterans who (fluase not to use the educational benefits of the GI Bill, 20.56 per cent werwa in the upper quartile, 19.63 per cent in the second quartile, 28.97 Per‘ cent in the third quartile and 30.84 per cent in the fourth quartile. In 'the non-veteran group 15 per cent were in the upper quartile, 20 per Cent: in the second quartile, 27.50 per cent in the third quartile and 37.50 per cent in the fourth quartile. (See Table 17.) In the group of veterans who used the GI Bill 9.17 per cent of the fkrthers were professional, 16.67 per cent were either executives or owners 13f their own businesses, 24.17 per cent were other white collar, 78 Table 17. Percentage of veterans who used the GI Bill, veterans who did not use the GI Bill and non-veterans from each quartile of male students in their high school graduating class. Upper Second Third Lower N Quartile Quartile Quartile Quartile % % % % Veterans Using GI Bill 120 22.50 24.17 24.17 29.16 Veterans Not Using GI Bill 107 20.56 19.63 28.97 30.84 Non-Veterans 40 15.00 20.00 27.50 37.50 30.83 per cent were skilled, 5 per cent were semi—skilled and 14.16 per cent were unskilled. There were 7.48 per cent of the fathers of veterans who did not use the GI Bill in the professions, 19.63 per cent in the executive or owner group, 16.82 per cent in other white collar occupa- tions, 26.17 per cent in skilled jobs, 15.88 per cent in semi-skilled and 14.02 per cent were unskilled. In the group of non-veterans 12.5 Per: cent of the fathers were in the professions, 17.5 per cent were executives or owners, 15 per cent were in other white collar occupations, 27.85 per cent were skilled workers while 10 per cent were semi-skilled anci 17.5 per cent were unskilled. (See Table 18.) The differences in fatfuer's occupational level is even more marked when non-veterans are COWVNired with only those veterans who used the GI education benefits. A mucfli smaller proportion of veterans than of non-veterans had fathers 1" Prwrfessional and executive and owner occupations. Similarly, fewer veteraxrs than non-veterans had fathers in semi-skilled or unskilled occuPations . k 79 Table 18. Occupational distribution of the fathers of veterans who used the GI Bill, veterans who did not use the GI Bill and non-veterans. Fathers' Veterans Who Veterans Not Non-Veterans Occupational Used GI Bill Using GI Bill Level (n = 120) (n = 107) (n = 40) % % % Professional 9.17 7.48 12.50 Executive or Owner 16.67 19.63 17.50 Other White Collar 24.17 16.82 15.00 Skilled 30.83 26.17 27.50 Semi—Skilled 5.00 15.88 10.00 Unskilled 14.16 14.02 17.50 Utilization of Benefits and Type of Education or Trainiog The veterans' use of the GI Bill differed somewhat between groups. The veterans whose fathers were in the other white collar group made the greatest use of the GI Bill, 61.70 per cent, followed by a 57.89 per cent utilization for the group whose fathers were professional workers, and 56.92 per cent for those with skilled fathers; 53.13 per cent of those whose fathers were unskilled used the benefits as did 48.78 per cent of those whose fathers were executives or owners and 26.09 per cent of those with semi-skilled fathers. Taken together, 56.40 per cent of those whose fathers were in the professional, executive or owner, other white collar 30d Skilled groups participated in the education and training benefits of the GI Bill while 41.82 per cent of those whose fathers were in the semi— skilled and unskilled groups took advantage of them. 80 It is interesting to note that in addition to the 57.89 per cent of the veterans with professional fathers who used the GI Bill, 31.58 per cent of those who did not use the education or training benefits had some kind of post-secondary education or training before their induction into service while only 15.63 per cent of the unskilled group had that advantage. (See Table 19.) Table 19. Percentage of sons of fathers in various occupations who as veterans utilized or did not utilize the education and train- ing benefits of the GI Bill. Father's Used GI Bill Did Not Use GI Bill Occupational‘ Level Some No PSE Some PSE No PSE PSE Before Before Before Before Induction Induction Induction Induction (n = 66) (n = 54) (n = 56) (n = 51) % 2. 2; Professional 19 47.37 10.52 31.58 10.53 Executive or Owner 41 36.59 12.19 21.95 29.27 Other White Collar 47 36.17 25.53 29.79 8.51 Skilled 65 27.69 29.23 20.00 23.08 Semi-skilled 23 4.35 21.74 39.13 34.78 Unskilled 32 18.75 34.38 15.63 31.25 ‘— Interesting differences appeared between the groups when an examination was made of the kind of education or training they chose. All veterans with fathers in the professions chose college or university training while 65 per cent of those whose fathers were executives or 81 owners and 48.28 per cent of the sons of other white collar workers went to a college or university. Only 35.20 per cent of those veterans with unskilled fathers, 33.33 per cent of those whose fathers were semi- skilled and 29.73 per cent of those with skilled fathers chose college or university training under the GI Bill. (See Table 20.) It appears that most of the 34.38 percent of the veterans with unskilled fathers who used the GI Bill and who had no post-secondary education or training before service, would not likely have gotten edu- cation or training beyond high school without the help of the GI Bill benefits. The evidence also indicates that the veterans from white col- lar and skilled groups participated in GI sponsored education programs slightly more than those from the semi-skilled and unskilled groups and that their participation was at a higher training level. This is a different training pattern than that found for the group of veterans who had education or training before service and who did not use the GI Bill. In this group 100 per cent of the sons of un- skilled workers chose college or university training, although only 40 Per cent of them finished four years, while only 83.33 per cent of the veterans whose fathers were professional chose college or university but all of them graduated. Training in a trade school was most popular among the sons of skilled workers, 38.46 per cent, semi-skilled, 33.33 per cent, and other white collar job holders, 28.57 per cent. (See Table 21.) The data on non-veterans reveals that 70 per cent of them received Some kind of post-secondary education. Of those 64.29 per cent chose COllege and 85.71 per cent started their training within two years 82 mw.m mw.m _¢.mm mo.ur ww.m om.mm NF nm—wamcz mo.m_ no.0? mm.mm mm.mm m vaPTxmuwemm Fm.m_ _¢.m ¢P.mm Pm.m_ om.m mm.mm Rm vaFexm me.m mm.om mu.m_ em.o~ me.m ww.me mm LmFFOU mews: cmcpo oo.m oo.m oo.m oo.mP oo.m oo.mo om Lmczo co m>wuzomxm oo.oo_ PF chowmmweoca & e e e x e e H a o ovate zpwmcm>vcs Fm>84 co co Foogom to z cowpcazouo cwspo mocmncoammccoo Eemmuco movpcmeaa< Fecowpeoo> mmmcwmzm mmmrpoo .mcmgpcm co mpwwmcmn Pecowpmozvm .ngpmt mew mo Pm>mp Fecoepmasooo asp op mcwceouom P—wm Ho esp mm: op mcwpume mcccwpw> zn vmzmcsa mcwcwcap co cowpmozvm to waxp .om wreck 83 Table 21. Type of pre-service education or training of veterans who did not use the GI Bill for each sub group based upon occu- pational level of their fathers. Father's College Business Trade Other OCCLuaational N or School School Level University % % % % Professional 6 83.33 16.67 Executive or Owner 9 77.78 22.22 Other White Collar 14 64.29 28.57 7.14 Skilled 13 30.77 23.08 38.46 7.69 Sani-skilled 9 55.56 11.11 33.33 Unskilled 5 100.00 after: high school graduation. (See Tables 22 and 23.) This may par- ifial'Ly account for the fact that they were not inducted into service as 42.865 per cent of those with some kind of advanced education or train— ing 1~eported that they had received an occupational deferment. (Table 24.) lflggflpe of the Respondents Level of income has an impact on all aspects of this study as it affecrts the veteran, his family, and his community. Obviously a high level 13f income enables the veteran to provide a better standard of living; for himself and his family than would be the case without it. He Wil'l be able to afford more of the amenities of life rather than being h91d tr) a grubby existence which may or may not provide the necessities. Table 22. Percentage of non-veterans who undertook post-secondary edu- cation and training and those who undertook it within two years of graduation according to the occupational level of their fathers. Father's Post-Secondary Began PSE Within No PS Occupational Education 2 years Education Level N or after Training Graduation % % % Professional 5 60.00 60.00 40.00 Executive or Owner 7 71.43 57.14 28.57 Other White Collar 6 50.00 50.00 50.00 Skilled 11 81.82 63.64 18.18 Sani—skilled 4 100.00 100.00 -— Unskilled 7 57.14 42.86 42.86 Tablea 23. Type of post-secondary education or training of non-veterans according to the occupation of their fathers. Fatruar's College Business Vocational Tech- Agri- None Occupational N or School or nical culture Level University Trade % % % % Professional 5 40.00 20.00 40.00 Executive or Owner 7 57.14 14.28 28.57 Other White Collar 6 33.33 11.67 50.00 Skilled 11 63.64 9.09 9.09 18.18 Semi-skilled 4 75.00 25-00 Unski lled 7 14.29 14.29 28.57 42.86 \h 85,. 'ratale 24. Percentage of non-veterans with post-secondary education or training indicating an occupational deferment according to the occupational level of their fathers. *— *— Father's Indicated Occupational Did not indicate Occupational N Deferment Occupational Level Deferment % % Professional 3 33.33 66.67 Executive or Owner 5 20.00 80.00 Other White Collar 3 40.00 60.00 Skilled 9 33.33 66.67 Sen1i-—skilled 4 50.00 50.00 Unskilled 4 75.00 25.00 It also means that he will be paying more in taxes to his local, state, and .federal governments. The dollars spent by the individual for material goods also help to produce a greater demand for those goods which in turn stimulates the economy and creates more jobs for more PGOple. In the case of the veteran who used the GI Bill to obtain edu- cation or training, it also means that he is repaying the cost of his education or training with his productivity. In short, if his education or training makes him a more productive individual with a higher level of income, the cost of the education or training is well worth the in- vestment without even counting the non-economic advantages obtained by the individual, his family, and his community. If an income of less than $5,000 is considered to be at poverty 01‘ no more than subsistence level and an income of $15,000 or more is 86 considered to be a relatively high income, some significant comparisons can be made. The veterans who used the GI Bill reported fewer members at the poverty or subsistence level, 3.33 per cent, than either veterans who did not use the bill, 6.54 per cent, or non-veterans, 5 per cent, in 1970. The group comprised of the veterans who used the GI Bill education benefits also had the smallest number, 43.34 per cent, with an income between $5,000 and $15,000, while 48.6 per cent of the veterans not using the bill and 57.5 per cent of the non-veterans were in this income cate- gory. The statistics also show that veterans who used the GI Bill had 153. 33 per cent of their members making over $15,000 in 1970 compared to I43. 92 per cent of the veterans not using the GI Bill and 37.5 per cent of the non-veterans. (See Table 25.) Table 26 compares the income of veterans who used the GI Bill, veterans who did not use the GI Bill and the GI Bill and non—veterans according to the type of education or train- ing they received. The Impact of the GI Bill upon Selected Characteristics of the Veteran Himself and His Family It is quite obvious that virtuallv any factor affecting the in- dividual veteran will have some kind of effect upon members of his family, either individually or collectively. It therefore seems appropriate to discuss the impact of the GI Bill upon the veteran and his family to- gether, realizing that some aspects of that impact will be greatest on the individual veterans while others will weigh more heavily upon the family. 87 Table 25. Reported 1970 income levels of all respondents by major study groups. (Excluding government pensions) Level of Veterans Who Used Veterans Not Using Non-Veterans Annual GI Bill GI Bill Income 1970 n = 120 n =107 n = 40 % % % Poverty or Subsistence 3.33 6.50 5.00 No Response 2.50 1.87 2.50 Under $3,000 0.83 2.80 -- 3,000 - 4,999 -- 1.87 2.50 Middle Income 43.34 48.60 57.50 5,000 - 9,999 14.17 17.76 12.50 10,000 - 14,999 29.17 30.84 45.00 High Income 53.33 43.92 37.50 15,000 - 19,999 29.17 22.43 17.50 20,000 - 24,999 10.83 11.21 2.50 25,000 and Over 13.33 10.28 17.50 I88 Table 26. Income of veterans and non-veterans according to type of training. No Response Under $5,000— $15,000 N $5,000 $14,000 & Over % % % % Vets Using GI Bill 120 Co 'I 1 ege 58 1.72 -- 29.31 68.97 Business 6 —— -- 66.67 33.33 Vocational 11 9.09 -- 72.73 18.18 Apprentice 26 3.85 3.85 53.84 38.46 On—Farm l -- -- -- 100.00 Correspondence 10 —- -- 70.00 30.00 Other 8 -— -- 50.00 50.00 Non-Veterans 28 College 20 -- -- 50.00 50.00 Technical 1 -- -- -— 100.00 Business 1 -— -- 100.00 —— Vocational 2 -- -- 100.00 -- Trade 3 -- -— 66.67 33.33 Agriculture 1 -- -- 100.00 -- 89 Post-secondary Education One question which needs to be examined is whether or not the GI Bill really increased the number of veterans who acquired post- secondary education or training beyond what it would have been without 1 state that a person's educational attain- the bill. Brazer and David ment is strongly influenced by the education of his parents. The statistics show that 20.26 per cent of the fathers and 16.74 per cent of the mothers of veterans had post-secondary education or training. In the group of veterans who used the GI Bill 24.30 per cent of the fathers and 16.67 per cent of the mothers had such training. Of the veterans who chose not to use the GI Bill 18.69 per cent of the fathers and 16.82 per cent of the mothers had some kind of post-secondary education or training, while 17.50 per cent of non-veterans' fathers and 10 per cent of their mothers had formal education beyond high school. (See table 27.) Table 27. Percentage comparison of post-secondary education of respond- ents' parents. , Veterans Veterans Who Veterans Not Non-Veterans Used GI Bill Using Bill N 227 120 107 40 % % % % Father With Post-Secondary Education 20.26 24.30 18.69 17.50 Mother With Post-Secondary Education 16.74 16.67 16.82 10.00 x x . 1Harvey E. Brazer and Martin David, "Social and Economic Deter- mlnants of the Demand for Education," Economics of Higher Education. Edited by Selma J. Mushkin. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education. Bulletin No. 5 (1962). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1962. 90 When the groups are further subdivided some very interesting differences appear. Veterans with post-secondary education before serv- ice who also used the GI Bill came from families with the highest per- centage of fathers, 33.33 per cent, and mothers, 25.76 per cent, having formal education beyond high school, while veterans who used the GI Bill but who had no post-secondary education or training before service had the smallest percentage of fathers, 7.41 per cent, and mothers, 5.55 per cent, having formal education beyond the high school. In the group of veterans not choosing to use the GI Bill, 25 per cent of both the fathers and mothers of those veterans who received post-secondary edu- cation before service had experienced formal education after high school compared to 11.76 per cent of the fathers and 7.84 per cent of the mothers for veterans with no post—secondary education. The influence of parental education upon the education of their children also appears in the non- veteran group where formal education beyond high school had been acquired by 17.86 per cent of the fathers and 14.29 per cent of the mothers of the non-veterans who received post-secondary education or training while such post-high school education had been received by only 16.67 per cent of the fathers and none of the mothers of non-veterans with no post-secondary education or training. (See Table 28.) These statistics appear to confirm the statement of Brazer and David that higher levels of parental education tend to be repeated in the educational levels of their children. It would appear that many of the veterans would have been expected to acquire, and indeed did acquire, post-secondary education or training without the use of the GI Bill. Before induction into service 53.74 per cent of the veterans had some in mN.¢_ ww.n oo.m~ mm.m on.mm cospoz 91 so.o_ om.e_ oe.__ oo.mN _o.N mm.mm eozoou a e e N e e N, mm Pm om oo oo z wa>me w0w>me wa>me wa>me mcomwm mcoemm wcommm mcoemm mmo oz zowz Mme zooz owe oz owe Mme oz owe __em Ho _zpm Ho mcocmpm>icoz mcwms poz mcogmpm> com: 053 mcocmpm> .mcecwocp co cowpoozvm zgoccoommupmoq mcw>og mpcmcoa co mmopcwucma mzp on mcwucouuo _m>m_ mcvcwocp so mucmncoamm; mo comzcanoo .wm mpnoz 92 kind of post-secondary education or training, but this figure increases to 77.53 per cent when those veterans without post-secondary education or training before service who used the GI Bill are added. The extremely small percentage of parents with education beyond high school among the group of veterans without pre-service post-secondary education or training who did use the GI Bill seems to indicate that the availability of the GI Bill, rather than the education of the parents, provided the motivation for this rather major group of veterans to continue their education after discharge from service. It also indicates that a high percentage of these veterans were the first members of their families to achieve post-secondary education or training. Marital and Family Related Factors The statistics show very little difference in marital status between veterans who used the GI Bill, veterans who did not use the GI Bill and non—veterans. Almost all of the men reported that they were married. Six per cent of veterans who had used GI education benefits and 4 per cent of veterans who had not, reported being divorced. None of the non—veterans reported being divorced. (Table 29.) There is no way to know whether those who are now married have previously been divorced so it is not possible to confidently compare the marital stability of the groups. The data, however, suggest that veterans were more likely than non-veterans to have been divorced. There are also no great differences in the number of children. The veterans are more likely to have two children while non-veterans are more likely to have only one child. The highest percentage of men with no children as well as the highest percentage having five or more children fall in the group of veterans who did not use the GI Bill. (See Table 30.) Collectively, the 227 veterans have 556, or an average of 2.44 children, while the 40 non-veterans have 110, or an average of 2.75, children. Educational Aspiration for Children More respondents in every group wanted their children to have four years of college than any other type of education with the second highest educational aspiration being five or more years of college. (See Table 31.) Three out of four parents in every group report a de- sire for four or more years of college, while only 5 per cent of GI edu- cated veterans, 7.5 per cent of non GI educated veterans and 2.5 per cent of non-veterans preferred one or two years (junior college terminal) education for their children. Likewise only 5.84 per cent of veterans who used the GI Bill wanted their children to attend a trade school while 9.34 per cent of the veterans who did not use the GI Bill and 12.5 per cent of the non—veterans preferred their children to have this kind of education or training. Occupational Levels of Veterans and Non-Veterans An examination of the survey data reveals a considerable change in the occupational level of the respondents from that of their fathers. In every group there was a decided elevation in occupational status. 94 Table 29. Marital status of respondents. Marital Veterans Who Used Veterans Not Using Non-Veterans Status GI Bill GI Bill N 120 107 40 % % % Single 3.33 3.74 2.50 Married 86.67 91.59 97.50 Widower 3.33 -— —— Divorced 5.83 3.74 -— No Response 0.84 0.94 -- Table 30. Number of children of respondents. Number Veterans Who Used Veterans Not Using Non—Veterans of GI Bill GI Bill Children N 120 107 40 % % % O 9.17 11.22 7.50 l 12.50 15.89 27.50 2 35.00 30.85 20.00 3 20.00 18.69 22.50 4 15.83 14.02 15.00 5 4.17 6.54 2.50 6 1.67 2.80 2.50 7 0.83 -- 2.50 8 _- __ -- 9 0.83 -- -- 95 oo.om om.m¢ om.m -1 om.m oo.m -1 in oo.oz ow mcocmpw> -coz mo.mm No.0m pm.m mm._ no.o ow.m mw._ Nw.p om.o mop pppm Hm oopmz poz mcocopo> m_.om mm.om mm.m no.z om.m mo.p mo._ Rm._ up.o omp szm Hm oom: on: mcopopo> & e e e e e e e & Foogom ocoz co m .mcx e .mex N .Lx F .mc> m .maz N .Lx _ cop: omcoomom z ozocw appmco>pcz Lo omo__oo Poogom oomph .mcz o oz pcoocoomom .cocoppgu epocp com o>og mcopopo>ucoc oco pppm Ha ogp mcpm: po: mcocopo> .Fppm Ho ozp oom: on: mcoeopo> pocp coppocpomo Focoppoosom .Fm open» 96 Only the veterans not using the GI Bill actually had a smaller percentage of individuals in the professions than their fathers, but this was more than offset by a very large increase in executives or owners of their own businesses. (See Table 32.) When the categories are further divided some interesting factors are revealed. The largest group in the professional category (32.14 per cent) is composed of non-veterans whose post-secondary education was gained without benefit of assistance from the GI Bill. Veterans having post—secondary education before the war plus further education with assistance of the GI Bill rank second with 21.21 per cent in the profes- sional category. Veterans are most frequently in the executive or owner class; 42.42 per cent of those with pre-induction post-secondary education plus further education under the GI Bill are in this category as are 35.71 per cent of those veterans with post-secondary education before service and no further education assisted by the GI Bill. It is interest- ing to note that veterans with no post-secondary education or training before service, whether or not they used the education benefits of the GI Bill, and non-veterans with no post-secondary education have the high- est percentages employed in the skilled category when all "white collar'I occupational categories (professionals, executives and owners of their own businesses and other white collar workers) are compared with all "blue collar" occupational categories. Five out of six (83.33 per cent) of veterans with pre-induction post-secondary education or training who also pursued further education with the assistance of the GI Bill are currently white collar workers compared with three out of four (76.78 per cent) of veterans with pre-induction post-secondary education or .Po>oz mo. osp pm pcoopmpcmpm mam moocopomcpo ozp peep wopoopocp ozpo> Amxv ocozom pguo i- om.n_ no.0 No.e_ .. mp.o_ oopppxmcz u- oo.o_ wn.o ww.m_ mm.m oo.m ooFprmupeom om.mm om.m~ oP.NN N—.om oo.mm mw.om ooFprm oo.mm oo.mp mm._m Nw.o_ om.mm N_.¢N coppoo apps: Lozpo m“ oo.m_ om.n_ mn._m mm.m_ mm.mm “0.0— Loczo Lo o>ppzooxm om.mm om.mp o~.m wo.n mm.mz m_.m Pocopmmoeoco co u : mop u : omz n : mcom mcocpou mcom mcocpou mcom mcozpou mooeopo>-ooz pppm Ho oepuz poz mooeopoz pppm Ho oooz ozz oooeopoz o.mco;pop cpozp co Fo>op pocoppoozooo op oopooEoo mpcoocoomoc co mpo>op Focoppoosooo .Nm opooh 98 training and no further education with GI Bi11 assistance and non-veterans (75 per cent) with post-secondary education or training gained without GI Bi11 assistance. (See Tab1e 33.) Occupationa1 Aspirations of Chi1dren of Respondents The data a1so revea1 that most of the chi1dren of both veterans and non—veterans in the survey samp1e are aspiring to higher status occu- pations than those of their fathers or grandfathers. There are 40 per cent of the chi1dren of veterans who used the GI Bi11 who have chosen or aspire to professiona1 positions, 4.83 per cent aspire to be executives or owners of their own businesses, 40.69 per cent aspire to other white co11ar occupations, 12.41 per cent aspire to ski11ed and 2.07 per cent to semi-ski11ed jobs. 0f the chi1dren of veterans who didn't use the GI Bi11 35.92 per cent aspire to the professions, 2.82 per cent to be exec— utives or owners of businesses, 42.26 per cent to be in other kinds of white co11ar occupations, 16.90 per cent to be ski11ed and 2.11 per cent to be semi-ski11ed workers. In the non-veteran groups 35.29 per cent of the chi1dren aspire to the professions, 7.84 per cent to be executives or owners, 31.84 per cent to be in other white co11ar work, 23.53 per cent to be ski11ed and 9.96 per cent to be semi-ski11ed. (See Tab1e 34.) It must be noted that these figures can on1y indicate a trend as the fina1 resu1ts can not be tabu1ated unti1 a11 of the chi1dren are finished with their educations and have made fina1 decisions as to their occupations. Many of the veterans have young chi1dren who are sti11 in e1ementary schoo1 so it wi11 be severa1 years before the fina1 resu1ts 99 -- -- ma.p -- -- -- pm.mp -- em.p mp.p mm.m mm._ oo.om oo.mm mm.mm me._m eo.pm m_.mp po.co oo.m~ mp.me -.mm mm.~¢ -pm.m_ pm.o_ pm.wm Ne.mm mm.mm mm.mm Op.mp pm.m_ m~.ep me.p~ pp.mm NN.NN N¢.Ne -- ep.Nm -- e_.p mm.m _N.pm mm.mm oo.mp pm.om mp.op pe.pm mm.mm p p p p p p Amp u :v Awm u CV ppm u CV pom u :v Aem u CV pom u CV muw>me wow>me muw>me muw>me coppmuzum coppmuzum mpowwm mgowmm mpommm mpomwm ma oz eppz ma eppz coppauzum oz coppmozem coppmuzem oz coppwozem m:mp¢pm>-:oz mcpma poz mcmpmpm> pppm Ha 6mm: 0:3 mcmgmpm> vmpppxmcz vappxmnpsmm amp—pxm Lappou mapm pepop LMFFOU apps: emcpo Loczo Lo m>pp=umxm pmcopmmmmoga emppou apps: pmpop pm>m4 pmcoppmazuuo m_p:mu:oammm ._m>m_ mcpcpwpp op mcpueooum mpcmvcoamme po pm>mp pwcoppmasuoo wcp po compemqeoo. .mm mpnmh 100 Tab1e 34. Percentage of comparison of the occupationa1 1eve1 chosen or aspired to by chi1dren of respondents. 0ccupationa1 Chi1dren of Chi1dren of Chi1dren of Leve1 Chosen Veterans Who Used Veterans Not Using Non-Veterans or Aspired to G1 Bi11 GI Bi11 % % % Professiona1 40.00 35.92 35.29 Executive or Owner 4.83 2.82 7.84 Other White Co11ar 40.69 42.26 31.37 Ski11ed 12.41 16.90 23.53 Semi-ski11ed 2.07 2.11 1.96 Unski11ed -- —- -- are in. In many cases, a1so, men who are owners of their own busines- ses wi11 1eave these to their chi1dren and the executive and owner c1ass wi11 1ike1y become much 1arger at the expense of other occupationa1 1eve1s to which their chi1dren current1y aspire. One 1imitation on this comparison that must be noted is that a11 chi1dren, both ma1e and fema1e, are inc1uded whi1e, of course, the fathers and grandfathers were on1y ma1es. The inc1usion of fema1es may s1ight1y a1ter the pattern of occupationa1 aspiration and choice a1- though gir1s are more 1ike1y to choose the occupation they want today than was true in past generations. Tab1e 35 compares the percentages of the fathers' emp1oyment, respondents' emp1oyment and their chi1dren's aspirations or choices in each occupationa1 1eve1. 101 --- --- 00.p_ --- 00.0 N0.0_ --- --- 0p.0p capppxmc0 00._ --- 00.0. __.N p0.0 00.0p p0.N 00.0 00.0 umpppxm-_swm 00.00 00.00 00.NN 00.0p 0_.pN p_.0N p0.N_ 00.00 00.00 umpppxm pm._m 00.00 00.0_ 00.00 0p._m 00.0_ 00.00 00.00 p_.0m 00p_00 apps: 00000 00.p 00.0p 0m.p_ 00.0 0p._m 00.0_ 00.0 00.00 p0.0_ L0030 Lo m>ppzumxm 00.00 00.00 0m.N_ 00.00 0p.m 00.p 00.00 00.0_ pp.0 pmcopmmapoem 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 p0_ 0N_ cmguppcu pcwvcoammm pwcpwm :mcuppgo pcwncoammm emgpmm 1111‘ :menppgo pcmucoammm pmzpmu memewpm>ucoz pppm Ho mcpm: poz mcmempm> pppm Hw com: 003 mcmcwpm> coppmcpam< Lo pm>m0 pmcoppmazouo .pmcopmmmpopa mew; mpwgpmp .mpcmucoqmme mews: cmcuppso epmgp mo coppmppamm Lo wopogo pmcoppmazuoo 0:0 .memnpmm epmgp 0:0 mpcmvcoamme we pw>wp pmcoppmqsouo mcp po campemaeou mumpcmocwm .mm mpnmp 102 0ccupationa1 Continuity in Fami1ies of Professiona1 Workers It is a1so interesting to examine the effect of the GI Bi11 and its educationa1 benefits upon the tendency of sons of professiona1 workers and their chi1dren to continue or aspire to continue in the professions. 0f the 24 respondents whose fathers were professiona1 men the data re- vea1 that on1y 18.18 per cent of the veterans who used the GI Bi11 and 12.50 per cent of the veterans who did not use the GI Bi11 entered pro- fessiona1 work. On the other hand 40 per cent of the non-veteran sons of professiona1 workers are current1y in the professions. Looking ahead, 30 per cent of the chi1dren of veterans who used the GI Bi11, 70 per cent of the chi1dren of veterans who did not use the bi11 and on1y 20 per cent of the chi1dren of non-veterans have chosen or aspire to pro- fessiona1 careers. (See Tab1e 36.) 0ccupationa1 Continuity in Fami1ies of Executives and Owners In the case of the 47 respondents whose fathers were either executives or owners of their own businesses 40 per cent of the veterans who used the GI Bi11 fo11owed in their fathers' footsteps whi1e another 25 per cent moved into the professions. In the group of veterans who did not use the bi11 there were 50 per cent who indicated they were ex- ecutives or owners of their own businesses but none of them had moved into the professions. Non-veterans had the highest tota1 of executives and professiona1s with 57.14 per cent and 14.29 per cent respective1y. It seems reasonab1e to assume that many of these were men who received educationa1 or occupationa1 deferments and thus did not become veterans. 103 -n- --- 00.00 00.00 --- 00.0w 0 0:0:mpo>-:oz 00 :0g0pp:0 --- --- 00.00 00.00 --- 00.00 m m:0:0p0>-:oz --- --- -- 00.00 00.00 00.00 00 0000 H0 0:000 poz m:0:0p0> we :0:000:0 --- --- -- 00.00 00.00 00.N_ 0 0000 00 00000 poz 0:0:mpm> -u- -u- 00.00 00.00 --- 00.00 00 0000 H0 0:p00 0:000pw> we :m:0_p:0 -u- --- 1. 00.0 00.00 0p.0_ pp 0000 H0 0:000 0:0prm> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0mpppxm:0 00000¥mupemm 00000x0 :00000 :0:20 :opp0Lp0m< opp:3 Lo 00:opmmmmo:0 z 00 00>00 :m:p0 m>ppzumxm 00:00p000000 .00:opmmmpog0 0:03 mgm:p0m .mp:w0:oammL 000:2 :mg0pp:o :00:p 0o :opp0ppam0 :o «000:0 00:00p0asooo 0:0 mp:m0:oqmm: 00 00>00 00:00p000000 .00 00000 104 Few of the chi1dren of the respondents aspire to be executives or owners. However they wi11 no doubt 1ater inherit their fathers' business. On1y 7.14 per cent of the chi1dren of veterans who used the bi11, 4 per cent of the chi1dren of veterans who did not use the bi11, and 16.67 per cent of the chi1dren of non-veterans are now indicated as aspiring to be in the executive or owner group. It is interesting that, in the meantime, the 1argest percentage of chi1dren who aspire to pro- fessiona1 careers are those of veterans who used the bi11, 60.71 per cent, fo11owed by 40 per cent of those of the veterans not using the bi11 and 16.67 per cent of those of non-veterans. (See Tab1e 37.) Occupationa1 Continuity in Fami1ies of Other White Co11ar Workers In the group of 53 respondents whose fathers were white co11ar workers the greatest number of high 1eve1 occupations are he1d by vet- erans who used the GI Bi11; 17.29 per cent are in the professions, 44.83 per cent are other white co11ar workers. 0n1y 17.24 per cent are b1ue co11ar workers. The veterans who did not use the GI Bi11, and who are sons of white co11ar workers, have 5.56 per cent of their members in the professions, 22.22 per cent executives or owners and 33.33 per cent ho1ding other white co11ar jobs whi1e 38.89 per cent ho1d b1ue co11ar jobs. Among non-veterans whose fathers were white co11ar workers, 16.67 per cent are in the professions and 33.33 per cent are in other white co11ar jobs whi1e another 50 per cent are in b1ue co11ar jobs (33.33 per cent ski11ed and 16.67 per cent semi-ski11ed.) 105 --- 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 Np m:0:0p0>.:0z 00 :0L0pp:0 -u- -u- 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.0p 0 m:000p0>.:0z --- --- 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 mm 0000 00 0:000 poz m:000p0> 00 :000—_:0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 --- 00 0000 H0 0:pm0 poz m:000p0> --- --- 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.00 00 0000 H0 0:000 m:000p0> 00 :0g0pp:0 -u- .I. 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 om 0000 H0 0:000 m:0pmp0> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0mpppxm:0 00000xm-0500 00ppwx0 :00000 00:20 00:0p0000000 z :0pp0:000< 0pp:2 :0 00 00>00 :0:p0 0>pp000xm 00:0pp000000 .mmmmm:pmzn :30 000:p 00 0:0:30 :0 00>pp000x0 0:03 mgm:p0w .mp:00:0000: 000:2 :000pp:0 :00:p 00 :0pp0Lp0m0 :0 0000:0 00:0pp000000 0:0 mp:00:00mw: 00 00>00 00:0pp000000 .00 0000p 106 The chi1dren of veterans in white co11ar jobs are showing marked. preference for the same or higher rather than 1ower 1eve1s of emp1oyment with the chi1dren of veterans who used the GI Bi11 having on1y 2.86 per cent aspiring to ski11ed and 2.86 per cent to semi—ski11ed jobs and 12.50 per cent of the chi1dren of veterans who did not use the bi11 as- piring to ski11ed jobs, whi1e 37.50 per cent of chi1dren of non-veterans wish to be ski11ed workers. (See Tab1e 38.) 0ccupationa1 Continuity in Fami1ies of Ski11ed Laborers Of the 76 respondents whose fathers were ski11ed 1aborers 57.14 per cent of the veterans not using the GI Bi11, 40.54 per cent of those who did use the bi11 and 27.27 per cent of non-veterans fo110wed in their fathers' footsteps. This 1arge proportion of veterans suggests the 1ike1ihood that ski11s 1earned whi1e in service were turned, most frequent1y without further training under the GI Bi11, to civi1ian occu- pations after 1eaving the armed forces. Another 18.18 per cent of the non-veterans, 13.51 per cent of the veterans who used the GI Bi11 and none of the veterans who did not use the GI Bi11 entered the professions. Non-veterans were most 1ike1y to move from the ski11ed occupations of their fathers to the professions (18.18 per cent) or to other white co1— 1ar work (45.45 per cent). Veterans whose fathers were ski11ed workers and who pursued no further education after discharge from service were most 1ike1y (57.14 per cent) to continue as ski11ed workers. Others became executives or owners (21.43 per cent) or other white co11ar workers (21.43 per cent). Veterans whose fathers were ski11ed workers and who 107 -u- -u- 00.00 00.00 --- 00.00 0 0:000p0>-:0z 00 :000—p:0 -u- 00.00 00.00 00.00 --- 00.00 0 m:000p0>-:0z --- -u- 00.00 00.00 --- 00.00 00 0000 00 0:000 poz m:000p0> 00 :00000:0 --- 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.0 00 0000 00 0:000 poz m:000p0> --- 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.00 00 0000 H0 0:000 m:000p0> 00 :000_p:0 -u- 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00 0000 00 0:00: m:000p0> 0 0 0 0 0 0 00pppxm:0 000—000-0500 0000000 000000 00:30 00:000000000 z :00p00000< 0pp:3 00 00 00>00 00:p0 0>pp000x0 00:00p000000 .0000003 000000 0pp:3 0003 m00:p00 .mp:00:00000 000:3 :00000:0 000:p 00 :00p000000 00 0000:0 00:00p000000 0:0 mp:00:00000 00 00>00 00:00p000000 .00 00000 108 pursued further education under the GI Bi11 most fu11y exp1oited the opportunities for upward mobi1ity. They became professiona1 workers (13.51 per cent), executives or owners (16.22 per cent) or other white co11ar workers (29.73 per cent), or they returned to work simi1ar to that of their fathers (40.54 per cent). A striking1y simi1ar pattern appears in the expressed aspirations of the chi1dren of respondents whose fathers were in the ski11ed worker c1assification. Chi1dren of non-veterans aspire most frequent1y to professiona1 positions (43.75 per cent) or to other white co11ar 1eve1s (31.25 per cent). Chi1dren of veterans whose fathers were ski11ed workers and who pursued no further education after discharge most fre— quent1y aspire to 1ower white c011ar positions (51.28 per cent), 1ess frequent1y to professiona1 positions (17.95 per cent), and rare1y to become executives or owners (2.56 per cent). Chi1dren of veterans who used the GI Bi11 seem to exercise a broad range of occupationa1 choice with 34.78 per cent aspiring to professiona1 work, 4.35 per cent to be— come executives or owners, 39.13 per cent to other white co11ar work, 17.39 per cent to continue in ski11ed occupations, and 4.35 per cent to move to semi-ski11ed occupations. (See Tab1e 39.) Occupationa1 Continuity in Fami1ies of Semi-Ski11ed Workers The 28 respondents whose fathers were semi-ski11ed are quite interesting. On1y among the 6 veterans who used the GI Bi11 are any members sti11 ho1ding semi-ski11ed jobs with 2 men or 33.33 per cent. Another of these men is a ski11ed worker, 2 are in "other white co11ar" 109 .u. -u- 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00 m:000p0>-:0z 00 :0000000 -u- -n- 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00 m:000p0>.:0z --- 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00 0000 00 0:000 poz m:000p0> 00 :0000000 ---- --- 0_.00 00._0 00._0 --- 00 pppm H0 00000 poz m:000p0> --- 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00 0000 00 0:00: m:000p0> 00 :000pp:0 -u- -u- 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00 0000 00 0:00: m:000p0> 0 0 0 0 0 0 00pppxm:0 0000000-0500 0000000 000000 00:30 00:000000000 z :00p0000m< 0p003 00 00 00>00 00:p0 0>pp000x0 00:0pp000000 :000pp:0 000:p 00 :00p0000m0 .00000000 0000000 0003 m00:p00 .mp:00:00000 000:3 00 0000:0 00:0pp000000 0:0 mp:00:00000 00 00>00 00:00p000000 .00 0000p 110 work, and 1 is in professiona1 work. Ha1f of the veterans not using the GI Bi11 are white co11ar workers, 11.11 per cent are ski11ed workers and 38.89 per cent are executives or owners, whi1e 75 per cent (3) of the non-veterans are professiona1s and the other 25 per cent (1) is an exec- utive or owner of his own business. (See Tab1e 40.) Occupationa1 Continuity in Fami1ies of Unski11ed Workers None of the 39 respondents whose fathers were unski11ed remain in this category. The data show that 52.94 per cent of the 17 veterans who used the GI Bi11 are ski11ed 1aborers whi1e 29.41 per cent are ex- ecutives or owners of their own businesses, 5.88 per cent are in semi- ski11ed work, and 5.88 per cent are in the professions. The 15 veterans who did not use the GI Bi11 have more of their group in white co11ar jobs with 26.67 per cent; 20 per cent are executives or owners, another 20 per cent are ski11ed and 20 per cent semi—ski11ed, and 13.33 per cent are in the professions. In the non-veteran group 71.43 per cent are in the professions with 14.29 per cent each in white co11ar and semi-ski11ed jobs. The chi1dren of the respondents have shown steady gains with every group being at a higher emp1oyment 1eve1 than their fathers. (See Tab1e 41.) The statistics a1so show that veterans who used the GI Bi11 are more 1ike1y to have been promoted to top management, midd1e management or supervisory positions in their present jobs than either veterans who did not use the GI Bi11 or non-veterans. (See Tab1e 42.) 111 -u- -u- 00.00 00.00 --- 00.00 0 m:000p0>-:0z 00 :000pp:0 nu- --- --- --- 00.00 00.00 0 m:000p0>-:0z -u- 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.00 00 0000 00 0:000 poz m:000p0> 00 :000pp:0 as- --- 00.00 00.00 00.00 --- 00 0000 00 0:000 poz m:000p0> -u- -u- 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0000 00 0:00: m:000p0> 00 :00000:0 uuu 00.00 00.00 00.00 --- 00.00 0 0000 00 0:00: m:000p0> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000:0 000—pxm-ps00 000—000 000000 00:30 00:000000000 z :0pp00p0m< 0pp:3 00 00 00>0: 00:p0 0>pp000x0 00:0pp000000 .00000000 00ppwxmupE0m 0003 m00:p00 .mp:00:00000 000:3 :000pp:0 000:p 00 :00p00p0m0 00 0000:0 00:00p000000 0:0 mp:00:00m00 00 p0>00 00:0pp000000 .00 00:00 112 -u- -u- -u- 00.00 00.0_ 00.00 0 m:000p0>-:0z 00 :000pp:0 -u- 00.00 00.00 00.00 --- --- 0 m:000p0>-:0z --- 00.0 00.00 00.00 --- 00.00 00 0000 H0 0:000 poz m:000p0> 00 :000pp:0 -u- 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00 0000 00 0:pm0 poz m:000p0> --- --- 00.0 00.00 --- 00.00 00 0000 00 0:00: m:000p0> 00 :000pp:0 --- 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 00 0000 00 0:00: m:000p0> 0 0 0 0 0 0 00pppxm:0 00pppxm-pE00 0000000 000000 00:30 00:000000000 z :0pp00000< 0pp:2 00 00 00>0: 00:p0 0>pp000xm 00:0pp000000 .00000000 00pppxm:: 0003 m00:p00 .mp:00:00000 000:3 :000pp:0 000:p 00 :00p000000 00 0000:0 00:0pp000000 0:0 mp:00:00m00 00 00>00 00:0pp000000 .00 00:00 113 Tab1e 42. Comparison of positions he1d by respondents in their present jobs.a Veterans Who Used Veterans Not Using Non-Veterans GI Bi11 GI Bi11 (n = 120) (n = 107) (n = 40) % % % Top Management 33.33 32.71 22.50 Midd1e Management 41.67 40.19 50.00 Supervisor 41.67 38.32 37.50 Ski11ed Laborer 27.50 22.43 27.50 Unski11ed Laborer 3.33 6.54 2.50 aPercentages inc1ude a11 positions he1d within the present firm or institution and not just current position. There are few differences between the groups in job stabi1ity, a1though a s1ight1y higher percentage of veterans who used the GI Bi11 have been with their present firm or institution, a1though not neces- sari1y in the same position, for 19 or more years than either veterans who did not use the GI Bi11 or non-veterans. Veterans who did not use the GI Bi11 have more individua1s who have he1d their present position for three years or 1ess than non-veterans or veterans who used the GI Bi11. (See Tab1e 43.) It shou1d be noted that 9.35 per cent of the veterans who did not use the GI Bi11 report receiving disabi1ity pensions from the Vet- erans' Administration with 3.74 per cent of these disabi1ities prevent- ing their working; 9.17 per cent of the veterans who used the GI Bi11 114 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.00 00>0 0:0 00 I: 00.00 F0.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00:00 .1 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0_ 00-0— 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00:0— 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.00 0_nm_ 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00-0— 00.0_ 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 0-0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.0_ 0-0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.0 0.0 00.00 00.0 0—.0_ 00.0 00.0 00.0 00:00000 oz 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 000 000 000 000 0:0mwm000 p:mmm00 0:0mwm000 p:mmm00 0:0mww000 p:mmm00 coppfiwwmmmm :ppz m000> m:000p0>-:0z 0000 H0 0000 0:3 m:000p0> 0000 00 0:00: poz m:000p0> .mp:00:00m00 00 p:050000E0 00 0p00000p0 .00 00:00 115 receive disabi1ity pensions with on1y 0.83 per cent prevented from work- ing as a resu1t of the disabi1ity. These figures cou1d have a s1ight effect upon the data which re1ated to occupations. Invo1vement in Continuing Education John Johnstone and Ramon Rivera did a monumenta1 survey of adu1t education in 1962 for the Nationa1 Opinion Research Center and used the fo11owing definition: Because it is much more than remedia1 education, adu1t 1earning in America.today can be better characterized as 'continuing education' --continuing in the sense of app1ying systematic 1earning processes to the particu1ar demands and interests of adu1t 1ife rather than in the sense of extending a forma1 education.1 In this sense non-veterans have the greatest amount of participation in continuing education in their communities with 57.50 per cent; 55 per cent of the veterans who used the GI Bi11 reported participation as did 46.73 per cent of the veterans who did not use the GI Bi11. Program offered by churches, industries, professiona1 organizations and co11eges,inc1uding junior co11eges, and universities are the most popu- 1ar among a11 groups, a1though in s1ight1y different rank order. (See Tab1e 44.) This corresponds c1ose1y to the findings of Johnstone and 12ivera who restricted their study to activities which were organized aieound some form of instruction and which had the imparting of some sort (VF know1edge, information or ski11 as their main purpose. They found ifliat more peop1e attended courses offered by churches or synagogues, . 1John W. C. Johnstone and Ramon J. Rivera, Vo1unteers for Learn- 129_(Chicago: A1dine Pub1ishing Company for the Nationa1 Opinion Research Center, 1965), p. 21. 116 Tab1e 44. Percentage of participation in continuing education by group of respondents according to the kind of organization sponsoring program. Organization Veterans Who Used Veterans Not Using Non-Veterans Sponsoring GI Bi11 GI Bi11 Programs (n = 120) (n = 107) (n = 40) % % % Industry 20.00 16.82 22.50 Church 21.67 14.02 22.50 Professiona1 Organization 17.50 14.02 15.00 Co11ege or University 13.33 6.54 20.00 Loca1 High Schoo1 7.50 9.35 10.00 Loca1 High Schoo1 4.17 5.61 12.50 Labor Union 6.67 3.74 5.00 Socia1 Science Agency 4.17 1.87 5.00 Other 3.33 3.74 7.50 21 per cent and co11eges and universities, 21 per cent, than by any other sponsor. Other sponsors they found were community organizations, 15 per cent, business and industry, 12 per cent, e1ementary and high schoo1, 12 per cent, private schoo1s, 7 per cent, government (a11 1eve1s), 7 per cent, Armed Forces, 4 per cent, and a11 other sponsors, 2 per cent.1 11bid., p. 61. 117 In the present study industry sponsored programs are uti1ized by 59.32 per cent of a11 respondents; 56.19 per cent participate in church spon- sored programs and 46.52 per cent in programs sponsored by professiona1 organizations. Choice of Leisure Activities Whi1e the differences are not great, it is interesting to note that the 1eisure activities most enjoyed by the veterans who used the GI Bi11 are reading newspapers, TV, reading books, and spectator sports, whi1e veterans who did not use the GI Bi11 prefer TV, reading newspapers, active sports and spectator sports and the preferences of non-veterans are reading newspapers, TV, outdoor activities, reading books and active sports. (See Tab1e 45.) In the area of cu1tura1 activities more non-veterans have at— tended six or more p1ays and concerts in the past two years than either group of veterans, but more veterans who used the GI Bi11 have visited art ga11eries six or more times. (See Tab1e 46.) Veterans who used the GI Bi11 and non-veterans report identica1 percentages of six or more p1easure trips during the past two years both within their home states, 42.50 per cent, and in other states, 22.50 per cent. Non-veterans have indu1ged in more p1easure trave1 in other countries than either veteran group. There is no way of knowing whether or not the fact that many veterans were overseas in combat and were stationed at foreign bases after the war has any bearing on this statistic. (See Tab1e 47.) 118 Tab1e 45. Distribution of respondents by groups and by 1eisure activi- ties enjoyed. Activity Veterans Who Used Veterans Not Using Non-Veterans GI Bi11 GI Bi11 (n = 120) (n = 107) (n = 40) % % % Reading Newspapers 76.76 73.83 82.50 Reading Books 63.63 58.88 60.00 TV 73.73 82.24 75.00 Movies 32.50 41.12 25.00 Concerts, P1ays, or Art 35.83 28.97 45.00 Participation in Music, Drama or Art 14.17 6.54 15.00 Creative Writing 5.00 1.87 2.50 Active Sports 54.17 62.62 60.00 Outdoor Activities 55.83 52.34 65.00 Spectator Sports 52.50 59.81 47.50 P1aying Cards 35.83 46.73 32.50 Other 15.83 10.28 20.00 119 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.00 00oz 00 0 -- 00.0 -- -- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 0 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.00 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000H00 000u00 000H00 000pucv A00pncv :000H00 A0mpu00 :000n00 :0mpu00 000000—00 mp000:00 00000 000000000 mp000:00 00000 000000000 mp000:00 00000 p0< p0< p0< 000:0pp< mmspp m:000p0>..:0z 0000 00 0000 H0 . 0:000 poz m:000p0> 0000 0:3 m:000p0> .000000 0: 00000 03p p000 0:p 0:0000 000000000 p00 0:0 mp000:00 .00000 0:00:0pp0 mp:00:00m00 00 00:000000 0:0 000p:00000 .00 00:00 120 ._.m>w_. O_.. we; #0 pcwuw$wcmwm 0:20 mwocmxwurvwv 003. vac—u. mmpwuwficw wzpw> ANXV 906360 0:00 00.0 00.00 00.00 --- 00.00 00.00 --- 00.00 00.00 0003 00 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 --- 00.00 00.00 --- 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 0 00.0 00.00 00.0 --- 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 0 00.00 00.00. 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.0 0 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000u:v 000u:v 000u:v A000u:v 0000u:v 0000u:v 0000u:v 0000u:v 0000u:v 00000p:000 m0p0p0 0p0p0 00000p:000 m0p0p0 0p0p0 0000p:000 m0p0p0 0p0p0 0000>000 00:p0 00:p0 :30 00:p0 00:p0 :30 00:p0 00:p0 :30 00300 m:00000>-:0z 0000 H0 0000 00 . 0:000 poz m:000p0> 0000 0:3 m:000p0> .000000 0: 00000 03p p000 0:p 0:0000 00000p:000 00:p0 :0 0:0 .m0p0pm 00:p0 .0p0pm 050: :0 00000000 000 0:000>00p mp:00:00000 00 000000000 0:0 000p:00000 .00 00000 121 The Impact of the GI Bi11 Upon the Community in Which the Veteran Resides One of the purposes of this study was to find out, in so far as possib1e, whether and how the education and training provisions of the GI Bi11 had affected the community where the veteran resides. An ex- amination of years of residence in the community, residentia1 mobi1ity, type and va1ue of housing, vo1unteer service to the community causes, 1eadership ro1es in the community, and voting patterns wi11 provide some answers. One-third of the veterans who used the GI Bi11 have 1ived in their community for forty-one or more years with s1ight1y over one- third having been there for fifteen years or 1ess. S1ight1y 1ess than one-third of the veterans who did not use the GI Bi11 and 27.50 per cent of the non-veterans have been in the community for forty-one or more years. (See Tab1e 48.) Veterans who used GI education benefits have changed residence more often than either of the other groups. One or more moves have been made by 77.49 per cent of them and 5 per cent have moved 4 or more times. Veterans who did not use the GI Bi11 were 1ike1y to have stayed iri the same home the past ten years with 56.07 per cent reporting not tuiving moved compared with 45 per cent of the non-veterans and 30.83 Per cent of the veterans who used the GI Bi11. Non—veterans were the 1east mobi1e with 90 per cent of them either not having moved at a11 or having moved on1y once. (See Tab1e 49.) 122 Tab1e 48. Distribution of respondents and years 1ived in their present communities. Years Veterans Who Used Veterans Not Using Non-Veterans GI Bi11 GI Bi11 (n = 120) (n = 107) (n = 40) % % % No Response 3.33 4.67 2.50 0-5 8.33 12.15 12.50 6-10 15.00 6.54 7.50 11-15 12.50 10.28 15.00 16-20 11.67 14.95 12.50 21-25 11.67 13.08 12.50 26-30 -- 2.80 5.00 31-35 1.67 0.93 5.00 36—40 2.50 2.80 -- 41 or More 33.33 31.78 27.50 Tab1e 49. Distribution of respondents by group and number of times they have moved in the past ten years. Moves Veterans Who Used Veterans Not Using Non-Veterans No Response None 1 2 3 4 or More 5.00 3.74 GI Bi11 GI B111 (n = 120) (n = 107) (n = 40) % % % 1.67 1.87 -- 30.83 56.07 45.00 40.83 18.69 45.00 15.83 9.35 7.50 5.83 10.28 2.50 123 An overwhe1ming majority of a11 three groups 1ive in houses which they own. The non-veterans 1ead with 90 per cent and are fo11owed by veterans who used the GI Bi11, 83.33 per cent, and veterans who did not use the bi11, 78.50 per cent. (See Tab1e 50.) Tab1e 50. Distribution of respondents by group and type of housing in which they 1ive. Type of Veterans Who Used Veterans Not Using Non-Veterans Housing GI Bi11 GI Bi11 (n = 120) (n = 107) (n = 40) % % % No Response 2.50 0.93 —~ Apartment 6.67 10.28 2.50 Owns Condominium 0.83 1.87 -- Owns Dup1ex 1.67 ‘ 0.93 -- Owns House 83.33 78.50 90.00 Rents House 2.50 4.67 2.50 Owns Mobi1e Home -- 2.80 -- Other 2.50 -- 1.32 ¥ The va1ue of these houses gives an indication of the rea1 estate taxes paid by the owners to the community in which they reside. A home in the $16,000 — $30,000 range was most popu1ar in a11 groups with 42.50 per cent of non-veterans, 39.17 per cent of veterans who used the GI Bi11 and 34.58 per cent of veterans who did not use it va1uing their homes in this range. Veterans who used the GI Bi11 had many more mem-H 1 bers, 14.16 per cent, who owned homes va1ued over $45,000 than either the \Ieterans who did not use the GI Bi11, 4.67 per cent, or non—veterans, 2.50 per cent. (See Tab1e 51.) 124 Tab1e 51. Va1ue of housing owned or month1y rent paid by respondents. Veterans Who Used Veterans Not Using Non-Veterans GI Bi11 GI Bi11 (n = 120) 107 40 % % % No Response 8.33 14.02 7.50 Va1ue of Housing $0-15,000 18.33 14.02 22.50 16-30,000 29.17 34.58 42.50 31-45,000 13.33 18.69 15.00 46-60,000 10.83 2.80 7.50 61-75,000 0.83 2.80 -- 76,000 or Over 2.50 1.87 2.50 Month1y Rent Paid $50-125 Rent 0.83 4.67 2.50 126-200 2.50 3.74 -- 201 or More 0.83 2.80 -- The veterans who used the GI Bi11 were far more generous, withi' both their time and money, in serving civic causes than either veterans who did not use the bi11 or non-veterans. Ten per cent of those who used the benefits he1ped nine or more community agencies, whi1e on1y 6.54 per cent of the veterans who had not uti1ized the GI Bi11 and 5 per cent of the non-veterans he1ped this many. (See Tab1e 52.) A higher percentage of veterans who used the bi11, 72.50 per cent, gave both time and money to these causes compared to 67.50 per cent of non-veterans and 59.81 per cent of veterans who did not use the GI Bi11. (See Tab1e 53.) 125 Tab1e 52. Number of community agencies to which time or money has been contributed by respondent groups since 1960. Numbers of Veterans Who Used Veterans Not Using Non-Veterans Agencies GI Bi11 GI Bi11 (n = 120) (n = 107) (n =_40) % % % No Response 0.83 1.87 -- 1 1.67 4.67 15.00 2 8.33 11.21 15.00 3 11.67 14.02 15.00 4 19.17 20.56 25.00 5 11.67 10.28 12.50 6 15.83 14.95 15.00 7 13.33 9.35 5.00 8 7.50 6.54 5.00 9 or More 10.00 6.54 5.00 Tab1e 53. Percentage of respondents by groups who contributed time, money or both. Contribution Veterans Who Used Veterans Not Using Non-Veterans GI Bi11 GI Bi11 (n = 120) (n = 107) (n = 40) % % % No Response 2.50 4.67 10.00 On1y Time -- 1.87 5.00 On1y Money 25.00 33.64 22.50 Both 72.50 59.81 67.50 126 Veterans who used the GI Bi11 gave most free1y of their time with 20.83 per cent reporting spending 25 or more days on vo1unteer service to these agencies during the past year compared to 15.99 per cent of veterans who did not use the GI Bi11 and 15 per cent of non-veterans. (See Tab1e 54.) Tab1e 54. Number of days time contributed by groups of respondents to community agencies 1ast year. Number Veterans Who Used Veterans Not Using Non-Veterans of GI Bi11 GI Bi11 Days (n = 120) (n = 107) (n = 40) % % % No Response 42.50 53.27 47.50 1-3 2.50 5.61 2.50 4-6 8.33 3.74 5.00 7-9 -- 1.87 2.50 10-12 12.50 10.28 17.50 13-15 3.33 3.74 5.00 16-18 -- 0.93 —- 19-21 8.33 4.67 5.00 22-54 1.67 -- -- 25 or Over 20.83 15.99 15.00 Veterans who used the GI Bi11 a1so gave the highest cash contri- butions to community agencies during the past year. A1most a fourth, 24.17 per cent, of them reported gifts of over $800 with on1y 15.99 per cent of the veterans not using the GI Bi11 and 10 per cent of the non- veterans giving this much. (See Tab1e 55.) 127 Tab1e 55. Amount of money contributed to community agencies by groups of respondents 1ast year. Amount Veterans Who Used Veterans Not Using Non-Veterans GI Bi11 GI Bi11 (n = 120) (n = 107) (n = 40) % % % No Response 12.50 21.50 25.00 $1—100 13.33 14.02 15.00 101-200 10.83 14.02 15.00 201-300 9.17 7.48 10.00 301-400 8.33 6.54 7.50 401-500 12.50 14.02 7.50 501-600 2.50 0.93 2.50 601-700 3.33 2.80 5.00 701-800 3.33 2.80 2.50 801 or More 24.17 15.99 10.00 Very few of the survey respondents in any group he1d pub1ic offices or served on city boards. Non-veterans 1ed in service on city or po1itica1 boards with 10 per cent compared to 5.61 per cent for vet— erans who had not used the GI Bi11 and 2.50 per cent for veterans who had used it. The veterans who had used the GI Bi11 1ed in the number ho1ding office in city government, 3.33 per cent, compared to 2.50 per cent for non—veterans and 0.93 per cent for veterans who had not used the GI Bi11. (See Tab1e 56.) When examining the years served in pub1ic office, non-veterans dominate at both ends of the sca1e. (See Tab1e 57.) 128 00.0 00000 00:000000000 .. I- 00.0 0>00< 00 000:0 .. 00.0 00.0 0>00< 00 030 -- -- -- 000000 0000000 -- -- 00.0 000000 0p0p0 I- 00.0 00.0 000000 0p::00 00.0 -- -- 000000 00000300 00.00 00.0 00.0 00000 0p000 0000p0000 00 0p00 00.0 00.0 00.0 p:0E:00>00 0p00 :0 000000 00.00 00.00 00.00 0:02 0 0. 0 300u00 3000u00 3000u00 m:000p0>-:oz 0000 00 0000 00 000: 000000 0:00: poz m:000p0> 0000 0:3 m:000p0> .000000 0: 0000000 000000 000000> 0:0000: mp:00:00000 00 000p:00000 .00 00:00 129 Tab1e 57. Number of years that respondents have served in pub1ic office by groups. Number Veterans Who Used Veterans Not Using Non-Veterans of GI Bi11 GI Bi11 Years (n = 120) (n = 107) (n = 40) % % % None 89.17 90.65 82.50 1-2 1.67 2.80 5.00 3-4 1.67 0.93 5.00 5-6 2.50 3.74 2.50 7-8 -- 0.93 -- 9-10 0.83 -- 2.50 11-12 0.83 -- -- 13-14 1.67 -- -- 15-16 0.83 -- -- 17 or More 0.83 0.93 2.50 One of the characteristics of good citizenship is participation in the po1itica1 system through exercising the right to vote in e1ections. The veterans having GI Bi11 education voted more often in every e1ectionLK primary, 1oca1, state and nationa1, than either veterans not using the GI Bi11 or non-veterans. In primary e1ections, 59.17 per cent of the GI Bi11 trained veterans voted four or more times in the past ten years which was more than doub1e the 28.33 per cent who did not vote. Veter- ans who did not use the GI Bi11 were second with 44.86 per cent voting four or more times, but 39.25 per cent did not vote at a11 whi1e non- veterans had the same number, 40 per cent, who voted at 1east four times and who did not vote. 130 In the regu1ar e1ections at 1oca1, state and federa1 1eve1, a 1arge percentage of a11 groups reported having voted four or more times in the past ten years with the veterans who used the GI Bi11 1eading in a11 instances. It is interesting that 90.83 per cent of them indicated they had voted four or more times in 1oca1 e1ections with a percentage of 83.33 in state e1ections and on1y 68.33 per cent voting this frequent1y in nationa1 e1ections. (See Tab1e 58.) There was 1imited participation in po1itica1 party conventions with non-veterans 1eading in the amount of participation at a11 1eve1s, 1oca1, state and federa1. Veterans who used the GI Bi11 were second in each instance. (See Tab1e 59.) Summary This chapter has attempted to describe the findings with respect to a wide range of characteristics of the respondents. It has revea1ed differences between veterans who used the GI Bi11, veterans who did not use the GI Bi11 and non-veterans. As a resu1t of this ana1ysis, it is c1ear that veterans who used the GI Bi11 have made greater gains in 1eve1 of occupation in comparison to their fathers, are more 1ike1y to be in top or midd1e management or supervisory positions, have 1ived 1onger in their communities, have greater upward mobi1ity within their community, 1ive in more expensive homes, have a higher 1eve1 of income, give more time and money to com- munity agencies, have a greater interest in art, and vote more frequent1y in e1ections at the 1oca1, state and nationa1 1eve1. These statements wi11 be examined in greater detai1 in Chapter VII. 131 .00>00 00. 0:p p0 p:00000:00m 000 000:0000000 0:p p0:p m0p0000:0 0:00> 0 xv 000000 0:00 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 000: 00 0 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 0 00.00 00.0 -- 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 -- 00.0 -- -- 00.0 -- -- -- 00.0 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000u00 300u00 A00u00 300u00 3000n00 0000u00 A000u00 3000n00 3000u00 3000HCV 3000u00 0000u00 000000 0000000 00p0p0 000000 00005000 0000000 00p0p0 00000: 00005000 0000000 00p0p0 000000 00005000 0MMmmfl m:00000>-0oz 0000 00 00000 poz 0000000> 0000 H0 0000 003 0000000> .000000 00 00000 :0p p000 0:p 0:0000 0:00p0000 0000000 0:0 0,0p0pm 0,00000 0.0005000 :0 0:0p0> mp:00:00m00 00 000p:00000 .00 00:00 132 .00>00 00. 0:p p0 p:00000:00m 000 000:0000000 0:p p0:p m0p0000c0 0:00> 00x0 000000 0:00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000: 00 0 -- -- 00.0 -- -- -- -- 00.0 00.0 0 -- -- 00.0 00.0 -- -- -- 00.0 00.0 N -- 00.0 -- -- -- 00.0 -- 00.0 00.0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300n00 300u00 300u00 3000u00 3000u00 0000u00 :000u00 3000n00 3000u00 0 00 000000002 00000 .0000 000000002 00000 00000 000000002 00000 .00000 -pampw00 00500 m:00000>-0oz 0000 00 0000 00 0:00: poz m:000p0> 0000 0:3 m:000p0> .000000 0: 00000 :0p p000 0:p 0:0000 0:00p:0>:00 0p000 0000p0000 000:00p0: 0:0 ,0p0pm .00000 :0 00p00000p000 0:3 mp:00:00m00 00 000p:00000 .00 00:00 CHAPTER VII SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Summary of the Study It has been the purpose of this study to investigate the effect of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act (the GI Bill) upon the individual veteran, his family, and his community. This study has been conducted in Danville, Illinois, deemed to be a reasonably representative mid- American community and one in which the investigator was well enough known to be granted complete access to essential preliminary records-- the high school transcripts and grade point averages of the population to be studied. Male graduates of Danville High School in the classes of 1936, 1937, I938, l939, and l940 were selected as the specific popula- tion for the study; the graduates of these classes would have had ample time to have started post-secondary education or training before the beginning of World War II. Those who entered service with no post- secondary education or training and who used the GI Bill education bene- fits were assumed as likely to have not undertaken post-secondary education or training had there been no GI Bill. The GI Bill as enacted and amended was an adult education bill: intended to serve both the community and the individual. It extended the public policy assumption that adult education serves the social welfare. That assumption, while never clearly stated, was nevertheless l33 I34 implicit in the Morrill Act of l862 establishing the land grand colleges, the SmitheLever Act of l9l4 establishing the Cooperative Extension Ser- vice in the land grant colleges, the Smith-Hughes Act of l9l7 establish- ing adult evening programs in vocational educationQdepartments, and the: depression-inspired programs embracing adult education. If the GI Bill has proved to be effective in serving both in-_ dividual and social purposes over a generation of time, it would seem that this same principle of massive federal sdpport of education, in- ..cluding the education of adults, might well be utilized in attempting long range and durable solutions to some of our present national prob- lems. This study has sought to ascertain whether or not the GI Bill has been effective. The research has been essentially a detailed study of the male graduates of the high school classes of 1936-1940, in a representative community,to determine whether or not veterans who par— ticipated in the education and training benefits of the GI Bill differed systematically on a range of selected real-life variables a quarter century later, from non—veterans and from veterans who did not partici- pate in such education benefits. Data required for the study came principally from two sources. Some data were available from high school transcripts and records. It wuas necessary to design a survey instrument to gather evidence on post- secondary education, military status and the numerous variables which were taken as indicators of personal, family and community impact. A Pai"tial replication of an earlier government survey of veterans was in- cltuded and additional questions were carefully formulated to minimize miSIJrujerstanding by the respondents and thus yield maximally valid data. 135 The proposed survey schedule was mimeographed and pretested on twenty-five males with backgrounds similar to those of the population to be surveyed. Refinements were made on the basis of the field test and the survey schedule was printed. (Appendix 3,) Current addresses of the graduates were obtained from alumni lists, class officers, families and friends. Several of the men were known to have died in combat in World War II while a number of others had died in recent years. Realizing that a truly random sample could not be obtained, a determined effort was made to either locate or account for each of the graduates in the population. 0f the 736 male graduates, 55 were known dead and 243 proved impossible to locate. Addresses were found for 438 and questionnaires were mailed to them. There were 267 usable responses which constituted a 6l per cent return of the surveys mailed out and a 36 per cent return of the total population. In addi- tion, three of the surveys were returned by widows and four were returned by the post office marked "address unknown". A computer analysis was run on the items available from high school transcripts: (1) year of graduation, (2) age, (3) occupation of the father and (4) quartiles in the high school graduating class, after they had been recalculated for males only. This analysis showed no significant differences between the groups of individuals who did not respond, whose addresses were unknown, who were known dead, or who did not respond to the survey. It was therefore assumed that the responses are a relatively representative sample of the total population. 136 Responses were coded and the coded data were punched on IBM cards for data processing. In cases where cell size justified doing so, the Control Data Corporation 6500 computer at Michigan State University was used to compute chi square tests of statistical significance of the re» lationship between the training levels and the dependent variables ex- amined in the surveys. The percentages used in reporting the results were computed on an electronic calculator. Summary of the Findings The study reveals that veterans who used the education benefits of the GI Bill appear more often than those who did not use it or the non-veterans to have a higher occupational level with 49.16 per cent either being in the professions or being executives or owners of their own businesses, compared with 35.52 per cent of the veterans not using the GI Bill and 37.50 per cent of the non-veterans. A higher percentage of the children of veterans who used the GI Bill, 44.83 per cent, are in or aspire to be in the professions or are or aspire to be executives or owners of their own businesses than the children of veterans who did not use the bill, 38.74 per cent, or the children of non-veterans, 43.13 per cent. Further, the children of veterans who utilized the GI edu- cation benefits range more freely over the whole span of occupational choice than do children of either of the other groups. Veterans who used the GI Bill appear more often than those who did not or the non-veterans to have been promoted to top or middle management or to supervisory positions although they hold only a slight 137 advantage in the number of years they have been with their present em— ployer. It therefore appears that their rate of advancement has been” faster than that of veterans not using the bill or non-veterans. This rate of advancement is also reflected in the higher level of income reported by veterans who used the GI Bill. In l970, excluding government pensions, 53.33 per cent of the veterans who used the GI Bill reported that they earned over $l5,000 compared with 43.92 per cent of the veterans who did not use the bill and 37.50 per cent of the non- veterans. Veterans who used the GI Bill appear more often than those who did not use it or non-veterans to have lived in their communities for a longer period of time. They are also more mobile within their community than the other groups. Since the data show that they live in more ex— pensive homes, it might be assumed that this is vertical, rather than horizontal, mobility. The veterans who used the GI Bill reported more time and money donated to community agencies than did veterans who did not use the bill or non-veterans. They also appear to take their responsibilities of citizenship more seriously as they report voting more frequently than do veterans who did not use the bill or non-veterans. Veterans who used the GI Bill express a greater interest in art than do the veterans who did not use the GI Bill or the non-veterans as a greater percentage of them reported visiting an art gallery in the Past two years than either of the other groups. Because of the local character of the study and the small num- bers involved, not all of these differences show up as being significant 138 in terms of the statistical tests employed. The two that demonstrated statistical significance at the .05 level were the occupational level and voting characteristics of the respondents. There was very little difference between veterans who used the GI Bill, veterans who did not use it and non-veterans in (a) marital status, (b) number of children, (c) eddcational aspirations for their children, (d) living in a home that they own, (e) leisure activities enjoyed or (f) having been elected or appointed to a public office. Non-veterans have a higher rate of participation in continuing education, activities organized around some form of instruction having the imparting of some sort of knowledge, information or skill as their main purpose, than either group of veterans. Non-veterans also have taken more pleasure trips abroad and attended more plays and concerts during the past two years than the veterans. Non-veterans also report more political party activity as they participate in more of the con- ventions held by their political party than do the veterans. _Qbservations by the Writer Underlying this study was an implicit assumption of the ”good- ness" of the GI Bill. Some of the findings about the veterans who used its educational benefits strongly support this assumption: (1) the higher level of income, (2) the more prestigious occupations, (3) the tendency to be more frequently in top management positions, (4) the Giving of more time and money to community causes and (5) the greater Participation in primary, local, state and national elections. There were also some failures of the findings to support the assumption. 139 The education acquired under the GI Bill seems to have had little, if any, impact on (1) cultural appreciation, (2) choice of leisure activi- ties, (3) participation in programs of continuing education, and (4) community leadership through elected offices or appointed positions on policy making boards. I feel that there are some logical explanations for the failure of this particular group of veterans to show greater gains from GI spon- sored education. There is no evidence as to whether or not veterans and non-veterans were proportionately represented in the responding sample. It is not possible to know the numbers of non-veterans among those who did not respond to the survey. It is quite possible that non— veterans who did not seek post-secondary education were reluctant to answer the survey questions, especially if they did not perceive them- selves to be in as advantageous a position as they would have liked. This could partially explain the large number of responses from the lowest quartile among male graduates in the graduating classes, and might well be responsible for the unexpectedly lower return rate of sur- vey forms by the graduates still living in Danville. Another important factor is that these particular graduating classes were chosen to see how many of the graduates who entered service with no post-secondary education or training utilized the educational benefits of the GI Bill. All of these graduates, and particularly those in the earliest classes studied, were old enough to have been fairly well established in occupations before the United States entered World War II. With jobs to return to and often with families to support, they were less likely to seek GI sponsored education than would younger men 140 who entered service directly or soon after high school. It is also quite likely that many of the non-veterans were men who had moved directly from high school into their chosen occupations or into post-secondary education and were deferred from service because of occupation or educa- tion and hence had several years head start in becoming established. The effect of GI educational benefits, p§r_§e, would likely be more evi- dent among men who graduated from high school after U.S. entry into the war and who were inducted into service before they had opportunity to become established in an occupation or post-secondary education. Another observation which can neither be proved nor disproved by the data is that the GI Bill prevented the United States from falling back into the depths of depression at the close of World War II. Dr. Floyd Reeves and others had argued that such a depression would occur if educational alternatives to seeking immediate employment were not provided by the government. It seems logical to assume that with war production winding down and with a deluge of discharged veterans and (iisplaced civilian workers seeking post-war employment, a catastrophic (iepression was almost inevitable had there not been alternatives to ennployment for a significant number of men. Educational alternatives vvere provided in the GI Bill and there was no depression. Egyiclusions and Implications This study posed two major questions, the first of which asked whether veterans from semi-skilled and unskilled groups tend to partici— Patee less (less frequently and/or at lower levels) than veterans from erite collar and skilled groups in GI sponsored education programs. 141 The data show that veterans from white collar and skilled groups did participate slightly more in GI sponsored education programs than those from semi-skilled and unskilled groups and that their participation was at a higher training level. The second question posed by this study asked whether veterans who participated in the education and training program of the GI Bill differ systematically from non-veterans and from veterans who did not participate with respect to a number of characteristics. The data show that the veterans who participated in the education and training program have a higher income, have a position in a higher level occupation, are less likely to choose their father's occupation, have more stability with their current firm or institution, have more vertical mobility within their occupation, vote more frequently in local, state and national elections, provide more volunteer service to local causes, are more likely to be the first members of their family to achieve formal post-secondary education, have more mobility of residence within their community, are less likely to migrate out of the community, visit art galleries more frequently and have more children who have chosen or have aspired to higher level and broader variety of occupations. Education or training under the GI Bill makes apparently little or no difference in office holding at the local, state, or national level, stability of 'Family, number of children, involvement in continuing education programs ()r participation in travel, music or literary programs. The GI Bill has turned out to be a good investment because of both the economic and non-economic contributions it has made to the individual veteran, his family and his community. This study has shown 142 that veterans who used the GI Bill have higher incomes and more expen- sive homes which mean that they pay higher taxes at all levels and are able able to provide more of the amenities of life for themselves and their families. The data reveal that in every instance respondents with post- secondary education or training, regardless of whether or not it was GI sponsored, came out ahead of those with no post-secondary education or training. The assumption was made that those veterans with no post- secondary education or training before service who used the benefits were unlikely to have received post-secondary education or training had there been no GI Bill, so it appears that 23.79 per cent of the veterans re— ceived a post—secondary education who would otherwise have ended their careers with high school graduation. The previous studies of veterans showed that younger veterans used the benefits more frequently than older veterans. Many of the veterans in this study did not take advantage of the GI Bill, probably because they were well established in an occupation before the war started and they returned to the same job when the war ended. It would be interesting to do an intensive study, in a similar community, of those who graduated during the war years to see what extent these younger and less well established men, as veterans, utilized the benefits of the GI Bill. An important piece of research, as well as an interesting one, would be a comparison of World War II, Korean and Vietnam veterans' utilization of the GI Bill provided for them. This should include both the amount and type of utilization. 143 Today's circumstances are quite different from those of the late 1940's and the early 1950's. During the past 20 years there has been a steady increase in the level of education in the United States. Much research has been conducted to show the economic value of more education, but no evidence seems to be available as to the impact of the kind of education acquired. Do we want to emphasize only a greater amount of education or do we also want to aim toward a certain kind of education? A comparison of veterans who went to college with those who took other types of training would be a valuable contribution to research and to the data base for personal decision and policy development. The policy makers should note that not only has the GI Bill been well worth its cost to the nation and should be continued, but also that education and training, whether for veterans or non-veterans, do make a ciifference. It would seem a far better investment for the federal gov- earnment to provide massive sums of money to educate the under-educated sso that they can become productive citizens rather than to be forced to F>rovide massive sums of money for subsistence welfare payments. The policy makers should also remember the need to insure that fiederal support for education is equitably utilized. As an illustration i't should be noted that while the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 provided for 'tlme establishment of the Cooperative Extension Service in each of the 1 and grant colleges, the money for these programs was given to the states ‘iri block grants. As a result very little of the money went to black Care 1 and grant colleges because of the segregation patterns of the day. needs to be taken to insure that the money is actually used for the 144 education purposes intended. A national commitment of large sums of federal dollars to the education of all the citizens of the United States is long overdue. Education is an investment, not a cost. It is an investment in free men. It is an investment in social welfare, better living standards, better health and less crime. It is an investment in higher production, increased income, and greater efficiency in agriculture, industry, and government. It is an investment in a bulwark against garbled information, half-truths and untruths; against ignorance and intolerance. It is an investment in human talent, better human relationships, democracy and peace.1 1The President's Commission on Higher Education, vol. V, Financing Higher Education (New York: Harper and Bros., 1947), p. 28. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Anderson, C. Arnold. "A Skeptical Note on Education and Mobility." Education, Economy, and Society. Edited by A. H. Halsey, Jean Floud, and C. Arnold Anderson. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. .Anderson, C. Arnold. "Access to Higher Education and Economic Develop- ment." Education, Economy, and Society. Edited by A. H. Halsey, Jean Floud, and C. Arnold Anderson. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. Babbidge, Homer 0., Jr., and Rosenzweig, Robert M. The Federal Interest In Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Backstrom, Charles Herbert, and Hursh, Gerald H. Survey Research. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1963. Becker, Howard S. "Schools and Systems of Stratification." Education, Economy, and Society. Edited by A. H. Halsey, Jean Floud, and C. Arnold Anderson. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. IBenson, Charles S. The Economics of Public Education. 2d ed; Boston: Houghton—Mifflin Company, 1968. ' E30rg, Walter R. Educational Research. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1963. Bowen, William G. "Assessing the Economic Contribution of Education: An Appraisal of Alternative Approaches." Economic Aspects of Education. Edited by Seymour E. Harris. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1962. Eirazer, Harvey E., and DaVid, Martin. "Social and Economic Determinants of the Demand for Education." Economics of Higher Education. Edited by Selma J. Mushkin. U.S. Department of Health, Educa- tion and Welfare, Office of Education. Bulletin No. 5 (1962). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1962. IiIILtannica, Book of the Year. 1971. London: William Benton, 1971. 145 146 Brown, Francis J. Educational Opportunities for Veterans. Washington, D.C.:. Public Affairs Press for American Council on Public Affairs, 1946. Brunner, Edmund deS., and Wayland, Sloan. "Occupation and Education." Education, Economy, and Society. Edited by A. H. Halsey, Jean Floud, and C. Arnold Anderson. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. Campbell, Donald Thomas, and Stanley, Julian C. Experimental and Quasi- Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1966. Clark, Burton R. "The 'Cooling-out' Function in Higher Education." Education, Economy, and Society. Edited by A. H. Halsey, Jean Floud, and C. Arnold Anderson. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. Conger, Louis H., Jr. I'College and University Enrollment: Projections." Economics of Higher Education. Edited by Selma J. Mushin. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Educa- tion.; Bulletin No. 5 (1962). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1962. Crowell-Collier Publishing Company. The G. I.'s and the Colleges. Veterans' Report No. 4. New York: Crowell-Collier Publishing Company, 1946. l)aniere, Andre. ”Planning Education for Economic Productivity." Chal- lenge and Change in American Education. Edited by Seymour E. Harris, Kenneth M. Deitch, and Alan Levensohn. Berkeley, Cal.: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1965. [lennison, Edward F. The Sources of Economic Growth in the United States and the Alternatives Before Us. New York: Committee for Economic Development, 1962. l)eannison, Edward F. "Measuring the Contribution of Education to Economic Growth." The Economics of Education. Edited by E[dward] A[ustin] Gfossage] Robinson, and J[ohn] E. Vaizey. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1966. Denwnison, Edward F.; Solow, Robert M.; and Eckstein, Otto. "Education and Economic Productivity." Education and Public Poligy. Edited by Seymour E. Harris, and Alan Levensohn. Berkeley, Cal.: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1965. Deyoe, George P., and Phipps, Lloyd J. The Role of the Farmer Trainer in the Education of Farm Veterans. Urbana, 111.: University of Illinois Agricultural Education Office, 1948. 147 Drucker, Peter F. "The Educational Revolution." Education, Economy, and Society. Edited by A. H. Halsey, Jean Floud, and C. Arnold Anderson. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. Eckhaus, Richard S. "Education and Economic Growth." Economics of Higher Education. Edited by Selma J. Mushkin. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education. Bulletin No. 5 (1962). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1962. Edding, F. I'Expenditure on Education: Statistics and Comments." The Economics of Education. Edited by E[dward] A[ustin] G[ossagE]' Robinson, and J[ohn] E. Vaizey. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1966. Gardner, John W. Excellence, Can We Be Equal and Excellent, Too? New York: Harper and Row, 1961. Ginzburg, Eli; "Education and National Efficiency in the U.S.A." Education, Economy, and Society. Edited by A. H. Halsey, Jean Floud, and C. Arnold Anderson. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. Halsey, A. H.; Floud, Jean; and Anderson, C. Arnold, eds. Education, Economy, and Society. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. Hansen, W. Lee, and Weisbrod, Burton A. Benefits, Costs, and Finance of Public Higher Education. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company, 1969. Harris, Seymour E., ed. Economic Aspects of Higher Education. Organi- zation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1962. Harris, Seymour.E.; Deitch, Kenneth M.; and Levensohn, Alan, eds. Chal- lenge and Change in American Education. Berkeley, Cal.: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1965. Harris, Seymour E., and Levensohn, Alan, eds. Education and Public Policy. Berkeley, Cal.: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1965. Hauser, Philip M. Population Perspectives. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1960. Havighurst, Robert J. "Education and Social Mobility in Four Societies. Education, Economy, and Society. Edited by A. H. Halsey, Jean Floud, and C. Arnold Anderson. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. 148 Havighurst, Robert J. “Socia1.C1ass in the United States: An Overview." Education and Society. Edited by Warren Kallenback, and Harold M. Hodges, Jr. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1963. Havighurst, Robert J., and Neugarten, Bernice L. Society_and Education. 2d ed; Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1962. Johnstone, John W. C., and Rivera, Ramon J. Volunteers for Learning. Chicago: A1dine Publishing Company for the National Opinion Research Center, 1965. Kahl, Joseph A. '"Common Man' Boys." Education, Economy, and Society. Edited by A. H. Halsey, Jean Floud, and C. Arnold Anderson. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. Kahn, Robert L., and Cannell, Charles F. The Dynamics of Interviewing. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1957. Kneller, George F. Education and Economic Thought. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1968. McCauley, John S. "Education for Manpower Development." Challenge and Change in American Education. Edited by Seymour E. Harris, Kenneth M. Deitch, and Alan Levensohn. Berkeley, Cal.: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1965. h4i11er, Herman P. I'Income and Education: Does Education Pay Off?" Economics of Higher Education. Edited by Selma J. Mushkin. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education. Bulletin No. 5 (1962). Washington, D.C.: Govern- ment Printing Office, 1962. Ddiller, Herman P. Income of the American People. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. for the Social Research Council in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1955. hiiller, Herman P. Rich Man, Poor Man. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1964. OFHDenheim, Abraham Naftali. Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measure- ment. New York: Basic Bobks, 1966. PaTDi, G. U. "General Problems of the Economics of Education." The Eco— nomics of Education. Edited by E[dward] A[ustin] G[ossagel Robinson, and J[ohn] E. Vaizey. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1966. Pardnen, Mildred. Surveys, Polls and Samples: Practical Procedures. New York: Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1966. 149 Payne, Stanley L. The Art of Asking Questions. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951. Reiss, Albert J., Jr.; Duncan, Otis Dudley; Hatt, Paul K.; and North, Cecil C. Occupations and Social Status. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. Richardson, Stephen A.; Dohrenwend, Barbara S.; and Klein, David. Inter- viewing, Its Form and Functions. New York: Basic Books, 1965. Rivlin, Alice M. The Role of the Federal Government in FinancinggHigher Education. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute, 1961. Robinson, E[dward] A[ustin] G[ossage], and Vaizey, J[ohn] E., eds. 115; Economics of Education. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1966. Rogoff, Natalie. "American Public Schools and Equality of Opportunity.” Education, Economy, and Society. Edited by A. H. Halsey, Jean Floud, and C. Arnold Anderson. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. Rogoff, Natalie. "Local Social Structure and Educational Selection." Education, Economy, and Society. Edited by A. H. Halsey, Jean Floud, and C. Arnold Anderson. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. ”Fireside Chat on Progress of War and Plans for Peace, July 28, 1943." The Tide Turns. The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Compiled by Samuel 1. Rosenman. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950. Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. "Message to the Congress on Education of War Veterans, October 27, 1943." The Tide Turns. The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Compiled by Samuel I. Rosenman. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950. 1?ossevelt, Franklin Delano. "Press Conference, July 30, 1943, to Release Report on Demobilization and Readjustment." The Tide Turns. The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Com- piled by Samuel 1. Rosenman. New York: Harper and Brother, 1950. Rcuasevelt, Franklin Delano. "Statement on Signing the GI Bill, June 22, 1944.” Victory and Threshold of Peace. The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Compiled by Samuel I. Rosenman. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950. chasevelt, Franklin Delano. "Statement on Signing the Bill Reducing the Draft Age on November 13, 1942.‘I Humanity on the Defensive. The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Com— piggd by Samuel I. Rosenman. New York: Harper and Brothers, 19 . 150 Ross, Davis R. B. Preparing for Ulysses: Politics and Veterans During World War II. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969: Rossi, Peter H. "Social Factors in Academic Achievement: A Brief Re- view." Education, Economy, and Society. Edited by A. H. Halsey, Jean Floud, and C. Arnold Anderson. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. Schultz, Theodore W. The Economic Value of Education. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. Sinclair, Frank. llOrderly Demobilization of U.S. Veterans, Plan." G. I. Joe--What of His Future? Milwaukee: Milwaukee Journal, 1944° Sinclair, Frank. "What of the Boys Who Will Swap War for School?" G. I. Joe-—What of His Future? Milwaukee: Milwaukee Journal, 1944. .Stapp, Katherine, and Bowman, W. I. History Under Our Feet. Danville, 111.: Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1968. .Stevenson, Adlai. "Our National Purpose.” Education and Society. Edited by W. Warren Kallenbach, and Harold N. Hodges, Jr. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1963. 'Thorp, Willard L. "101 Questions for Investigation.” Economics of Higher Education. Edited by Selma J. Mushkin. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education. Bulletin No. 5 (1962). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1962. 'Furabian, Kate L. A Manual for Writers. 3d ed., Rev.; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967. 'Turner, Ralph H. "Modes of Social Ascent Through Education: Sponsored and Contest Mobility." Education, Economy, and Society. Edited by A. H. Halsey, Jean Floud, and C. Arnold Anderson. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. Verizey, John. The Economics of Education. London: Faber and Faber, 1962. Virizey, John, and Debeavais, Michael. "Economic Aspects of Educational Development.” ,Education, Economy, and Society. Edited by A. H. Halsey, Jean Floud, and C. Arnold Anderson. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. W61 ler, Willard. Veteran Comes Back. New York: The Dryden Press, 1944. ‘Vetfla, Eugene J.; Campbell, Donald T.; Schwartz, Richard; and Sechrest, Lee. Unobstrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. 151 Wector, Dixon. ~When Johnny Comes Marching Home. Cambridge, Mass: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1944. Weisbrod, Burton A. External Benefits of Public Education. Princeton: Princeton University Industrial Relations Section, 1964. Wolfle, Dael. "Educational Opportunity, Measured Intelligence, and Social Background." Education, Economy, and Society. Edited by A. H. Halsey, Jean Floud, and C. Arnold Anderson. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. Periodicals Atkinson, Byron H. ”The GI Bill as a Social Experiment.” School and Society, LXVIII, No. 1751 (1948), pp. 43-44. Becker, Gary S. "Investment in Human Capital: A Theoretical Analysis. The Journal of Political Economy, LXX, No. 5, pt. 2 (1962), pp. 9-49. Becker, Gary S. "Underinvestment in College Education?" American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, L, No. 2 (1960), pp. 346-54. Bowman, Mary Jean. “Converging Concerns of Economists and Educators." Comparative Education Review, VI, No. 2 (1962), pp. 111-9. Bridgman, D. S. "Problems in Estimating the Monetary Value of College Education." The Review of Economics and Statistics, XLII, Supplement (August, 1960), pp. 180-4. Brunner, Edmund deS. "Education and Economic Characteristics.” Teachers Collegngecord. XLIX, No. 7 (1948), pp. 458-65. (flaflin, William. "Expectations of the Veteran.“ Educational Outlook, XIX, (1944-45), pp. 4-5. Ccniverse, P. D., and Baum, Arthur W. I'You Can Still Do it Today." ‘Ihg Saturday Evening Post, CCXVIII, No. 14 (1945), pp. 22-23. EcflV 80000000000804 8000000» 05 £98.23 0808093 820808 .8 830080988 :00 0830000 0.8 so» A033 8m 3:50.08 0 020: :20 on .NA .3 AnaV ANNV AO0V AeuV AO0V AwAV AO0V ASV A00V AvAV AO0V ANAV AHA-3V 00.0300 000805 A V 00.830— .00.505 A V acmEoosm A V 2008000808 0:02: A V 8080.08.08 non. A V 0 A088 .8 08 0100ch «no.0 8000.8 .89» 08 E0: :9» 030: 0.83089 005$ 15.-11:- Amuuo.» EV 0.30: 8 0.8 :90 08 05 8080008 3000:0088: new 0:» 8 no.» 0.003 .88— Rom Asst 12.0.8.0 08000.8 .890 8 :00: :90 020; .08— Bow 00» A V wow 0: 30 005$ “02 A V 00.0050“ 89A 00 0800 05 new .890 0A 00NAV 02 A V «0005005 056 .89» :30 :90 on 60838005 A V 3:925 A V 00A§0080m A V 005% A V A083000m8m A V " A050 00.0 00000000 0:0 0:0 000008 A.. $0 :9». 0A0 x83 we A053 0.0.39 A 0:3 non V 11.11-1:08:50 mo 038:2 0000208 A V 0006003 A V 00:00: A V 000000 A V 0000000 0000.002 ------.-----1 803056000 8980 AME we .80? WEZWQZAmeHm Q44 Wm Qmmflgmzdw Hm OBI:— ZO—Hbm—w mflBZ 00:00:): 830 80% 0000:? 080: 0:008 0- :-----:l08_0> 0000002 830 80.» 8000.5 0080: 0- 111150800 03082 0800 80.» 80:3 0080: < :I-:-I----08A0> 0000002 8000 89A 80:00 000380 4 AA AAAA A VV WVV v I ..... :11 05~d> HQMHNE :30 50% 80:3 880808000800 00 -------:-----0800 530802 0808000090 84 "80 0>: 80.» on .00 00>: 308 8.» 000:? 00888800 0:0 80 00>: 80.» 0.00: .0800 30m .00 800308 08 0.5: H A V 0800080 80020000 080.» 0.6: 08000000.» 00:? .00 AO0V AO0V AO0V AO0V AO0V AO0V $0...va onV A00.00V A00.00V A00-00V A0903 A2068 0008 00 m 0. BED 03000: EEO £00800: EEO 000:8 EEO 08000m EEO 000000 0000—8800 0.000% A0000m 00< 800220 08 0>0: H A V 2000008800 :000 00: 08:00:00 :088 .8: 080 80020000 080.» 000 20 Bow .5 AVAVAV 80:00 0008008: 00 000000 0080000000 00 :080 80000800 00 008.00 00:00 000000.080 00 000:00 V 08:00 00083”. V 808m :05 80000800": 00 0000? 0 8002080 08 0>0: 800 00 000: 000:0 A V 00.00300 00 800230 080.» 0:: 80.» E83 :08: 8800000800 00:? .00 AV AVAVAVAV AVA AVAVAVA 0 0 02 A V 00% A V “00% A V 0Z A V 000003 00 000:000m 02 A V 00W A V ”00% A V 02 A V 00000.0 0Z A V 00W A V "00% A V 07: A V 00:00:: in :6 000085 ... 80:00 :00: 080.00: 088000 00 800000800 :08000 0080088 30800 080.0 00 0000808 .80 0.0000 .00 000:8 ............. 0.000----!------in "000.» 000A 0800 00 0008000080 000200 080 0.0000 :0000 0008000": A V A V 000000 A V A V A V 000003000 808:0 A V A V A V 00008000 00:00 000.0800 :80 .ZMHOZOD 800000.03 .0556 A V A V A V .000 .0000 008 0.800800 A V A V A V 00000.0 0.0.05 A V A V A V 808D 0000.: A V A V A V 800000080000 880000000000 A V A V A V 0020 000.0000 A V A V A V 00008800 00 0008000 A V A V A V 800000080000 0800000 > A V A V A V 408 A V A V A V 00080 0cm A V A V A V 050 00005 A V 0082 00809 ” A0008 00 08 00088 ... 0000 00800 .0088 00 0800 00080000800 80 0.008 00008000 000888800 080300000 0:0 00 800:? 0B .00 165 AevV AanV AanV Aan A000 ARV AvnV AnnV II-d00 .8880 000080088 .8888 03008 .80— .00200 00800 "0.88080 000 .003080 00008 80 0&0 00005 ~00 80.» 000 x005 00 0800A 0003 .000. 08 000 800 00 0000 800 A V "08000 00800 000 0000080 80.» 0000th 540% 000 080080 0880— 000005 80.» 00003 00 00.0 000 00008000 00005 .0 A800—8000 00023 00000 A V 0800.00.00 000000 080080004 A V 0800-0—80 A8000 080080002 A V .0000 0800-0008 00 8008800 80 088—003 A V .00-0 .00—8000 0 8: 0800-:80 080.003 A V "A0008 00 080 00008 0.08000 00800 000 0000080 80.» "50055 000.0% 000 00 0008 .8000 80.» 0003 000.5 .N 000800 000A 0005 80,000 0000080 0005 .0 wig—HE V5 V‘HZAV Qflfim—Bma "5 8'5 205.0000 AunV A0nV Ach AawV A600.— 000— 80 000 00 8080 0000.5 oz A V 080 A V 08000080000 A8000 0000 00000 0000.» 030 8000005 800000800 080.» 8800 09A 05 .N 0000.» 00 000882 A000 008000000 -08 .0000 A0000: .00080080 .00000 0080000003 A8000 0.000 00000 00080000 00.00—A8 00 008000 00 0850 AV AV AmV AvV AnV AV AV 000:8 0008 00 0. @ 0 0 08000000 0080000000 02 A V ”000000 0000 8000 0800080000 00800 0000388 0>00 80.0 0.00:8 00 .8000 00 00.00: 000090 000 00800 00005 .H mz-ZOZ Wm— .WAZO Quay—".0355 H5 8': ZG—Hbflw :— ZOEUHW 05. 20:5. M30005 Egan—55> < H: DOV .5 AO0V AO0V AO0V AO0V AQNV AMNV ANNV AO0V AO0V AO0V A00V A00V 5 205085 05. 20:5. 00205.05 EMHE>-ZOZ 4 @004 DOW E 0zAV 8% A V 0080800000 8800088000 80 0>00 80.» 05 A0V AOV 003080 00005 "02 A V 8H A V 0.003 .00 00080080m 00000 000000 00800 000 80 0.0000 80.0 05 SN 00.8 .8 000.00» A V 000.000 - 000.00» A V 000.000 - 000.00» A V 000.000-000.000 A V 000.0 0-0000 0 A V 000.0 0 - 000.0 0 A V 000.00 000.5 A V Neva." new 08000: HO ~95— 0800 003 0003 08000800 080880000.0 02090.00: .00 :08ng .200 A V .0220 A V 8080 0000A A V 80000080000 88000000005 A V .528 A V A000 . 080—00 000 0800000 Z045 0800 0003 00050 A5898 888V .0280 A V .0000 080 08 M8 .00 003 088000 00 —00000 000 0800 0.805 A V V V V V 080—003 002803 88.88 80 .8 25 8.280 A V 00088 0 00 0808000 0088 00 000 0 00.8005. A V .08 00080 0800003 000 000000000000 0 0080000 A V A080 00008 0.080 .0000 000 800000 23.-S 0800 003 00005 82 A V 80 A V 0:5 00 000 00088 0000 00 0000000 800 0000 088000 00 00800 00 000800 000 000—0800 800 05 A00V AO0V AouV AavV Ava Ava onV Aqu Ava Aan AavV A0~V 0003000 8 0000880 0:000 008 00 000803 088000 00 800000800 00 0000 00 00.0000 A8805 8.0V H0280 A V .00088 00800800000000 A V 088000 8000-80 A V .8880 000000-80 00 000080000< A V .—00000 00000 00 1080000000? A V .—00000 088085 A V .2 A V 80 A V 0800080000 00 000:8 000880 0 8 00000 800 05 000000888 00 0.00:00 A V " A0008 00 080 00000V 200000 00 0000 00 088000 00 080— 0003 .00-0 080000080 003080 00005 "00% A V A8888 0x08 8 800 00 8080 00005V 02 A V «:5 06 000 00088 088000 00 080— 080 0000 00 —00000 080000 800 000 .000000 00800 000 080300— 00004 ........... .-mwumuwpw. 0x0 .0mxu—nuu—wafl 02 A V 0.000000 00800 000 Gamma—AH mmommm A000 .0008080 .00000 0080000003 —00000 00 080— 00000 080 080000 800 05 AV AVAVAVAV 0 0 0 000:8 300000008000 008 A V H000000 00800 000 UZHMEZH "0000,0005 0000—088 800 0000 —00000 00 00000 000080 000 00000 00005 0008 00 m 0. --!-i-----!i.. A80—000 00005V 800000 00000 .08— 08 8 000 0 080 0.8088 .0008080 830 008 0803 .0003 008000 00 00 0—00 008 .000 .00—8000 0808000 08 "800000 20400 00000 00.00—5'07— A V .8020 -80 08000000 0 0003 0003 .00—080 0000.00? A V .0008 .0080 00 0000—080 0800 000 00 0080800000000 A V 0.0000000 o 55 000000 000 800 000 00 080— 0800 000 00 .0A—00w0 . 85 00 808000 800 000 .000000 00800 000 . 800 000 .mzuw>aww~.fiw#HdV AAAAAAA vvvvvvv .w ESTABLISHED IN 1949 DANVILLE JUNIOR COLLEGE O 2000 EAST MAIN 0 DANVILLE, ILLINOIS 61832 0 TELEPHONE (217) 443-1811 MARY MILLER, President October 22, 1971 Dear Danville High Alumnus: The questionnaire which was sent to you several weeks ago has had very good response. It has been very interesting to see the wide variety of professions represented in these classes and the wide dispersal of your classmates throughout the United States. I have learned that some surveys were not received by the graduate and were not returned to me by the post office. In case your survey was lost or has been mislaid, I am sending you another. Your response is very important to my study and I would be most appreciative if you would take time to fill it out right away. Please be assured that I am the only person seeing the responses and I am interested in them only in a collective sense. They will be destroyed as soon as I tabulate them. I would like to have all questionnaires back in my hands before November 5. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Mary Ann iller Dean of Adult Education 167 j HICHIGRN STRTE UNIV. LI RQRIES B } H 312931 @73M3452 fifiv .3 i;‘.‘ .9; j- . " ‘