Air University Review , November-December 1980
As an Air Force Education Services Officer, I found Cecile S. Landrum's article "The Military and the Civilian Economy since the Loss of the GI Bill" (May-June 1980) very interesting.
Articles dealing with civilian educational programs for military personnel give the impression that the writers are peering down a tunnel with very narrow sides. While no one would deny that GI Bill educational benefits and in-service, off-duty educational benefits are important enlistment and retention incentives, I think they would appeal most to the ill-informed.
Nearly any American citizen, in or out of the military service, with demonstrated financial need may qualify for a Basic Education Opportunity Grant (BEOG), which will pay up to $1800 per year to cover college costs. This sum easily matches or even surpasses the amount almost any undergraduate military member on active duty may expect to receive, in a given year, through the Air Force tuition assistance program or even the Vietnam era GI Bill. One might respond that $1800 per year is hardly enough to pay for a year at college and the student would undoubtedly have to work to make up the difference. True, but the service member using tuition assistance has a full-time job and usually works at least 40 hours each week.
Compared to the BEOG, the Congress has been almost shamefully lighthearted in offering the Veterans' Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) as an enlistment incentive to those entering the service in 1977. Examine the program carefully. The member contributes up to $75 per month for 36 months. Thus the member accumulates $2700. The Veterans Administration (VA) matches the $2700 on a two-for-one basis for a total of $5400. Add the $5400 to $2700 and the service member has a total of $8100 to defray the costs of college. But wait! How much did the VA actually give to the member? $5400. And this will be doled out at a rate of $1800 per year. How much may a BEOG recipient receive each year? The same $1800! And the civilian did not have to serve one day in the service to qualify for it.
BEOGs are only the "ground floor" of the financial assistance package available to college students. Other programs available are Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, College Work Study, National Direct Student Loans, and Guaranteed Student Loans. An impressive array of other scholarships, grants, and loan programs is available.
The increasing "burden" of the services' tuition assistance program, which can be measured in the millions, can in no way be compared to the billions expended on the civilian sector by the federal government.
But let us press on to more hopeful signs. Most of the fund sources available to civilians are also available in some measure to military personnel. In most cases the funds may be used to supplement either military tuition assistance or even GI Bill educational benefits.
Programs conducted on military bases are rarely eligible for even partial state funding. The amount of money made available through private contributions and endowments is minuscule. Thus, the total military contribution to this valuable enlistment and retention tool consists of tuition assistance at a rate of 75 percent and the provision of cost-free facilities and utilities. While some may contend that the provision of facilities, utilities, and partial tuition assistance is generous and more than adequate, the fact is that the support is as inadequate as VEAP. In this state, one of the poorest in the nation, one local state college receives nearly $2000 per year for each full-time student. This sum is in addition to tuition and fees charged the student, nearly an additional $1000 per year. No one could seriously argue that Congressional support of on-base, off-duty education comes close to the $2000-$3000 per student income the college receives each year.
The services' educational incentive for enlistment and reenlistment suffers from an extremely serious and significant financial need. In too many cases, the colleges are not able to present the type of high-quality programs they would like because of financial constraints and inadequate base facilities. If colleges conducting educational programs on military bases must continue to depend entirely on tuition aid and cost-free facilities and utilities, they will almost certainly continue to find themselves on the sharp edge of a financial abyss.
The old concept of a GI Bill was that it was intended to assist the service member to readjust to civilian life, to pick up the pieces of his militarily interrupted life, and get on with it. Such a bill is no longer necessary. What is needed is adequate educational funding to help service members adjust themselves to military life and to make them more valuable members of the services.
Therefore, these recommendations ought to be placed under consideration:
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
Contributor
Stephen H. Morochnick
is an Education Services Officer.Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.
Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor