Talk:G.I. Bill

Too Complicated and Incomplete

First, the articles on VEAP and MGIB should remain on their own as they are legislation passed many years after the Serviceman's Readjustment Act of 1944. Any vet knows of the MGIB today and will likely have never heard of any "readjustment act". I suppose the article on the Serviceman's Readjustment Act could have a short discussion on how education benefits have morphed into today's GI Bill but todays benefits are only a legacy of the 1944 legislation.

I hate to sound critical but there are serious problems with the entries on MGIB, VEAP and the MGIB comparison table that is attached to the Serviceman's Readjustment Act of 1944 article. Some of the information is inaccurate and it is entirely incomplete.

Wikipedia should consider sticking to some basic facts about each of these programs and not try to enter into specifics. The rules in dealing with the payment and entitlement of these benefits are contained in thousands of pages of combined Regulations, US Code and finally the manuals used by those at the Veterans Administration who actually process the benefits for our veterans. With every rule there is an exception and for every exception there is another rule and they change constantly! What few words spoken of on the MGIB article regarding entitlement and the time limit within which benefits are required to be used is inadequate, inaccurate and incomplete. The problem I am trying to get across is that in order to make it complete would require volumes which already exist and are maintained by the experts.

In closing, please cut these articles out as they exist and provide basic facts about each benefit type and possibly a historical reference. Anything a person needs to know and a link to ask someone a question can be found at http://www.gibill.va.gov/ Wspruce 21:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)bill 12/12/06

And your experience comes from what?

Less talk, more action, and Yes I take offense to what you wrote.

When a person think of GI BILL they think of educational benefits. As a result of an ever changing environment, politics, and incentives by the Military and U.S. Government; The GI BILL has evolved as well. Now if you feel like the table does not provide a brief overview of what is available, and different characteristics among the different types incentives available. Then feel free to do something about it. But I seriously doubt that you can do anything better.

I do not have direct experience with every different type of educational benefits, the one's I do have direct experience with is as follows: CH 30, CH 1606, CH 1607, Tuition Assistance, and Student Loan Repayment Program. And I assure you Tuition Assistance, and Student Loan Repayment Program, is not found on the VA website, however they are educational benefits provided by the military.

Also what is written, and what is done are two different things in the real world. And I can assure you I know this for a fact, because I am a (44C) Financial Management Technician in the Military. Service Members come to me and ask me how you do this, in order to get this. When I have to explain to an Reservist, that if they decide to go in the IRR or not extend there contract, guess what your Educational Benefits are terminated. "But, but my recruiter said I have 10 year to use it. " guess what the recruiter did not tell you everything, and sometimes when I talk to the VA rep, I know more than they do. But you are right there is alway an exception, but how many service members know about it. That chart is only basically a rule of thumb, you click on the link for more detail. Paul.Paquette 23:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

How about "GI"? and: "G. I."-->"G.I."?

I notice that the use of "GI" w/o periods is quite common out there (like on the illustration in this very article), so we might consider using that instead of the punctuated variant.

Also, if sticking with a punctuated variant, shouldn't we rather use "G.I." w/o a space in between the letters? Looks much better IMO, and perhaps it is just as grammatically correct? --Wernher 20:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, on second thought, maybe we should just stick with the present article name--G. I. Bill of Rights. I'll make a few more redirects. --Wernher 15:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The term 'democratized' seems a bit offensive for all the reasons stated on the page 'African Americans and the GI-bill'. Perhaps it could be clarified by saying that it helped the white middle class become upwardly mobile while leaving blacks behind in the inner-cities?

G.I. (with the dots) is the preferred form when talking about a soldier. For the "act", either GI Bill or G.I. Bill is used. --Uncle Ed 18:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be standardized throughout. GI or G.I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.147.203.129 (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, instead of hand-wringing about the usage for 5 years, I was WP:BOLD and fixed it! (When talking about GIs, we say Gee-Eye. We don't say Gee-period-Eye-period. But in print the G.I. comes across more clearly.)--S. Rich (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, with periods it does read more unambiguously. But all of the printed literature reads “GI Bill” with no periods, and always has. I’m editing a book, and the current state of this article has caused serious confusion on this point. Further discussion, please! I myself am not bold enough to do a move to a different title, which is what this change would require. MJ (t • c) 16:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...

The whites had introduced racial policies to shut out African Americans from suburban communities but it should be argued that Amendment 14 guarantees the rights of all citizens of United States: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Of course African Americans buying suburban homes not unconstitutional! So what is written is simply fact.

It is only the barriers set by property companies that bar African Americans buying houses. Then the governments did not stop this. Sigh!

Concerned 07:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a note of explanation: (1) Amendment 14, which you quoted above, prohibits the U.S. (or individual State) government from making or enforcing any law abridging the "privileges and immunities, etc." It did not apply to individuals, whether people or private companies. Consequently, there was need to pass more comprehensive Civil Rights legislation, which was done in the 1950s and 1960s (public accommodation, housing, employment, etc.). With respect to the subject you raised (housing--restrictive covenants), the "landmark" case of Shelley v. Kraemer ruled that the use of courts to enforce restrictive covenants in housing developments is unconstitutional. This was in 1948. So by that time, black (or Jewish, or Japanese) families could no longer be excluded from purchasing a home (whether with the help of the G.I. Bill or through any other means) in an area in which the residents wanted to exclude them. For whatever comfort it is. Progress proceeds slowly. 66.108.4.183 12:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Certification

The certification section of the article sounds like it's being written by an army recruiter and needs to be changed to a more neutral, historic stance.

Suburbs

The article on the GI Bill makes the assumption that there are cities and suburban towns, and the suburbs were populated entirely from the urban neighborhoods. While this might explain what became known as the "white flight" phenomenon of the 1960s and 1970s, the late 1940s and 1950s were a different era.

During WWII there was a population shift from the rural to old and new manufacturing centers. In addition, many people decided to move to California, which had suburban communities surrounding the defense plants. With the return of millions of GIs in 1945, the demand for housing outstripped availability. The GI Bill, signed by FDR, was intended to provide a smooth social transition from war time to peace time and not to perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination (in fact the home loans specifically prohibited discrimination).

Not all suburban communities were segregated or restricted on ethnic lines, and the newer housing developments tended to be open to diversity. Many former GIs wanted to live in affordable detached houses close to schools, parks, and libraries. They wanted quiet neighborhoods, without crime and traffic, with room for lawns and gardens. The suburbs were perfect for these young families because these communities offered the appeal of the small rural towns with the conveniences of modern cities.

The urban political and social establishment immediately saw a challenge to their traditional position of power and authority, but could do little to actually stop the growth of the suburbs. The old political machines and union bosses were dismayed at how quickly suburbanites came to see itself as a post war middle class distinct from the pre-war working class, and the urban and academic intellectuals came out against what they saw as a sterile new suburban culture uninterested in the elite arts. The suburbanites were unaffected by, if not actually unaware of, this criticism, and instead went about raising families and having barbecues.

Mergefrom

I added the Mergefrom tag for a bunch of articles (to which I added mergeto tags.) All of the proposed-merge articles are short and with little relevance to anything other than the larger G.I. Bill. It appears that they should all be merged into this article.

Separately, shouldn't this article be renamed "Servicemen's Readjustment etc etc..." ? Paul 04:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Did it ever occur to you that the reason I made the information box? if you merge all these articles into one massively big one, then individuals will get lost and overwhelm in information overload. Beside, Tuition assistance is a benefit but not a guarantee, just something to sweeten the pot. Paul.Paquette

• I think the article should be merged or at least provide links to the smaller articles from the GI bill primary article.

AmericanPatriot29 00:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Sock of indefinitely-blocked user:Jerry Jones. -Will Beback 04:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Student Loan Repayment is not part of the G.I. Bill. So I do not think it should be merged.--Oldwildbill 12:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Tuition assistance" is a much broader concept than this one US GI program. The article now doesn't really have any content, just links to individual documents associated with that program. Is it possible this article can be developed, either by actual content about the US program, or with general information on tuition assistance and descriptions of other programs?Lisamh 19:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It would take serious effort to combine all the GI bills into one article. Let's shape it as a series, with the 1947 bill as the first. (I removed the merge tag.) --Uncle Ed 19:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Typo in section "Criticisms of the G.I. Bill"

This line:

It is also asserted that such a subsidization of higher education has led to overproduction, in this case overproducing college degrees so that the supply of people with college degrees does not meet the demand of the market

...surely if it's overproducing, it's more correct to say that the demand does not meet the supply? Perhaps 'match' would be a better term than 'meet' as it doesn't imply that the supply was insufficient.

Name of article

I thought GI Bill was the best, but Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 is more formal, hence more "encyclopedic". Note that the text calls it the "GI Bill" throughout (with one reference to "GI Bill of Rights".

Ask any American about the "GI Bill" - especially in connection with college tuition assistance, and the 1944 act as what they think of.

I used a similar program called VEAP in the 1980s. --Uncle Ed 18:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move. Much more common name in English. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support Although I appreciate the logic of the editor above (that Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 is the formal definition), I do not believe that the name as it stands conforms for Wikipedia Naming Conventions. Specifically, from WP:Naming Conventions,

Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

Clearly, G.I. Bill is "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." The lead of the article says as much. JCO312 21:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Assuming the article is accurate, the most common name is G.I. Bill. Andrewa 14:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just because it is widely known as GI Bill here in America, assuming the rest of the world know this name is wrong. This is just an American nickname given to this real Servicemen's Readjustment Act. Not necessary a more common name. Chris! _{my talk} 00:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: This bill is unlikely to be well known outside of the USA, so if (as you seem to concede) this American nickname is well established in the USA then overall it is probably the most common name worldwide as well. Is there any evidence that the official name is more widely used than the nickname outside of the USA, or that significant numbers of people outside the USA are even aware of the bill's existence? No change of vote. Andrewa 20:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The "majority of English speakers" would clearly use "G.I. Bill" to describe the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944. In fact, the Government largely uses "G.I. Bill" to describe the Act. And by "the Government," I mean specifically, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. "G.I. Bill" returns 2.69 million hits on Google, whereas "Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944" returns 66,500. I think those numbers put into perspective just what the "common" name of this Act really is: the "G.I. Bill." JasonCNJ 21:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support, I bet 99% of people wouldn't be able to tell you the official name of the G.I. Bill. --Pmsyyz 22:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 March 2019 and 12 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emma.wollenweber.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jwmay1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Charge of Racism Needs to Be Returned and Supported

The article contains the phrase "[t]he bill helped to democratize the 'American Dream' primarily for white Americans." This charge of racism needs to be clarified. For example, (1) was the program administered in a racist manner, (2) what was the total number of blacks who received a benefit from the program, (3) for those persons receiving benefits, what was the level of educational performance, broken down by race? Without this type of support, the implication that the bill was primarily for the benefit of white persons is merely racist rhetoric that should be eliminated.130.13.4.45 (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)John Paul Parks130.13.4.45 (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The charge needs to be added back in, and supported. Whites made up the majority of combat duty troops, which the bill targeted at first - and seems to be whitewashed from this version of the article.67.180.92.188 (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, for much of the early part of the war, Black/Hispanic/Native American/Asians were prohibited from Combat roles. They were assigned to Service support roles ( Launcdry, Cook, Drivers)

until FDR started creating black combat roles in all areas. Being a cook on a warship at Pearl Harbor was just as dangerous a job as running an Anti-Aircraft gun, but, it's clear that the law was treating these servicemen differently. It's not hard to document discrimination in administration of the GI Bill benefits, and that history deserves to be written in. --Patbahn (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

the great majority of WW2 and postwar veterans were never in combat. there was NO combat requirement at any stage. Rjensen (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Major rewrite

Would editors here feel favorable to a major re-write effort that would work ot incorporate all of the various veterans' education programs? Of course the WWII one was the actual "GI Bill" that the lead paragraph talks about, but the term is commonly used to refer to them all. I'm thinking the article could use a rewrite to better give a clearer history & outline of each program, especially since the passage of the Post-9/11 "GI Bill". ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 00:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What about senator Bennett Champ Clark?

It seems like he was the senator which introduced the later-approved version of the G.I. Bill in the senate:

To the time-honored list of things which U.S. politicians may be counted upon to denounce relentlessly—the housefly, the common cold, the man-eating shark—Washington's Senator Homer Bone in 1937 added cancer. When he introduced a bill for a National Cancer Institute, it bore the sponsoring signatures of 94 Senators. (The other two hastened to add theirs before the bill came to a vote.) Last fortnight Missouri's Bennett Champ Clark hit on something which politicians almost as unanimously favor. He introduced a veterans' benefits bill, jointly sponsored by 80 other Senators. Last week, amid plaints by the remaining 15 Senators that they had not had a chance to sign it in advance, the Senate passed the bill unanimously. The House is expected to follow suit this week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.84.151 (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WAFs, WAVEs, etc -- were they eligible

WAVES, Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs, WFTDs & WAFS), SPARS (the United States Coast Guard Women's Reserve) -- were they eligible for original GI Bill?--S. Rich (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that seems sadly missing from this. It was only troops who served combat-duty.67.180.92.188 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC).

Under "HISTORY," there is this line: "President Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted a postwar assistance program to help transition from wartime. The veterans' organizations mobilized support in Congress that rejected Teddy's initial approach and tied benefits only to military service."-- WTF? "Teddy"? Is someone really, truly confusing FDR with Teddy Roosevelt? I don't get it.Ted Newsom (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

WAFs, WAVEs, were all eligible for the GI bill---it was NOT limited to combat service. The WASP, Red Cross and USO however, were civilian groups that did NOT get the veteran status or veteran benefits. (The WASP got veteran status decades later and are now eligible for veterans hospitals). Rjensen (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

MGIB and college

It should be noted that the MGIB was developed as a recruitment tool, not as a way to send veterans to college — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.103.180.10 (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What evidence do you cite for this assertion? In my history of higher education courses, we always discussed the original GI Bill as mainly be a way to deal with all of the returning soldiers who needed something to do (e.g. work, school); this was particularly important given the unemployment that had rocked the country during the Great Depression that immediately preceded the war. ElKevbo (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

African-Americans and the G.I. Bill

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. The discussion was open for more than a month with only a few editors opining, so this does not appear to be a controversial proposal that will be disputed. Schazjmd (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Should African Americans and the G.I. Bill be merged into this page, or at least warrant a subsection here? It's a significant part of the bill's legacy, but only receives a nod in the "see also" section.Sanderphi (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it should be merged. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but I think the full text from African Americans and the G.I. Bill should replace the Racial discrimination text in this article; it's more complete. Schazjmd (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

replace the racial discrimination part and merge it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:46E0:6700:69B2:3B7B:1FBC:5F4B (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chap 31 vocational rehabilitation link

I changed the link for vocational rehabilitation from rehabilitation counseling to vocational rehabilitation. Patience456 (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on G.I. Bill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dcmilitaryed.com/cms/storyHE.php?county=DCMilitary&school=25
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150620024645/http://www.gibillforum.com/ to http://www.gibillforum.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on G.I. Bill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121028044521/http://gibillmaze.webs.com/ to http://gibillmaze.webs.com/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.armyreserveeducation.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gibillforum.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarized material removed

The following material was copied and pasted into the World War II section of the article. Someone needs to summarize it instead. Aschuet1 (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Citation should be US National Educational and Social Development Policy Handbook: Social Policy and Education Strategy

Moreover, because of the ongoing military draft from 1940 to 1973, as many as one third of the population (when both veterans and their dependents are taken into account) were eligible for benefits from the expansion of veterans’ benefits.

The success of the 1944 G.I. Bill prompted the government to offer similar measures to later generations of veterans. The Veterans’ Adjustment Act of 1952, signed into law on July 16, 1952, offered benefits to veterans of the Korean War that served for more than 90 days and had received an "other than dishonorable discharge." Korean War veterans did not receive unemployment compensation—they were not members of the "52–20 Club" like World War II vets, but they were entitled to unemployment compensation starting at the end of a waiting period which was determined by the amount and disbursement dates of their mustering out pay. They could receive 26 weeks at $26 a week that the federal government would subsidize but administered by the various states. One improvement in the unemployment compensation for Korean War veterans was they could receive both state and federal benefits, the federal benefits beginning once state benefits were exhausted.

One significant difference between the 1944 G.I. Bill and the 1952 Act was that tuition fees were no longer paid directly to the chosen institution of higher education. Instead, veterans received a fixed monthly sum of $110, which they used to pay for their tuition, fees, books, and living expenses. The decision to end direct tuition payments to schools came after a 1950 House select committee uncovered incidents of overcharging of tuition rates by some institutions under the original G.I. Bill in an attempt to defraud the government.

Although the monthly stipend proved sufficient for most Korean War veterans, the decision would have negative repercussions for later veterans. By the end of the program on January 31, 1965, approximately 2.4 million of 5.5 million eligible veterans had used their benefits: roughly 1.2 million for higher education, over 860,000 for other education purposes, and 318,000 for occupational training. Over 1.5 million Korean War veterans obtained home loans.

Whereas the G.I. Bills of 1944 and 1952 were given to compensate veterans for wartime service, the Veterans Readjustment Benefits Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-358) changed the nature of military service in America by extending benefits to veterans who served during times of war and peace. At first there was some opposition to the concept of a peacetime G.I. Bill. President Dwight Eisenhower had rejected such a measure in 1959 after the Bradley commission concluded that military service should be "an obligation of citizenship, not a basis for government benefits." President Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat) believed that many of his "Great Society" social programs negated the need for sweeping veterans benefits. But, prompted by unanimous support given the bill by Congress, Johnson signed it into law on March 3, 1966.

Almost immediately critics within the veterans’ community and on Capitol Hill charged that the bill did not go far enough. At first, single veterans who had served more than 180 days and had received an "other than dishonorable discharge" received only $100 a month from which they had to pay for tuition and all of their expenses. Most found this amount to be sufficient to pay only for books and minor fees, and not enough to live on or attend college full-time. In particular, veterans of the Vietnam War disliked the fact that the bill did not provide them with the same educational opportunities as their World War II predecessors. Consequently, during the early years of the program, only about 25% of Vietnam veterans used their education benefits.

In the next decade, efforts were made to increase veterans’ benefits. Congress succeeded, often in the face of fierce objections from the fiscally conservative Nixon and Ford Administrations, to raise benefit levels. In 1967, a single veteran's benefits were raised to $130 a month; in 1970 they rose to $175; under the Readjustment Assistance Act of 1972 the monthly allowance rose to $220; in 1974 it rose to $270, $292 in 1976, and then $311 a month in 1977.

As the funding levels increased, the numbers of veterans entering higher education rose correspondingly. In 1976, ten years after the first veterans became eligible, the highest number of Vietnam-era veterans were enrolled in colleges and universities. By the end of the program, proportionally more Vietnam-era veterans (6.8 million out of 10.3 million eligible) had used their benefits for higher education than any previous generation of veterans.

The United States military moved to an all-volunteer force in 1973, and veterans continued to receive benefits, in part as an inducement to enlist, under the Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) and the Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB). From December 1976 through 1987, veterans received assistance under the VEAP. The VEAP departed from previous programs by requiring participants to make a contribution to their education benefits. The Veterans Administration then matched their contributions at a rate of 2 to 1. Enlisted personnel could contribute up to $100 a month up to a maximum of $2700. Benefits could be claimed for up to 36 months.

To be eligible for VEAP, a veteran had to serve for more than 180 days and receive an "other than dishonorable discharge." Nearly 700,000 veterans used their benefits for education and training under this program.

In 1985, a bill sponsored by Democratic Congressman "Sonny" Gillespie V. Montgomery expanded the G.I. Bill. The MGIB replaced the VEAP for those who served after July 1, 1985. This was an entirely voluntary program in which participants could choose to forfeit $100 per month from their first year of pay. In return, eligible veterans received a tuition allowance and a monthly stipend for up to 36 months of eligible training or education.

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on G.I. Bill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120131131445/http://www.usmm.org/urgent.html to http://www.usmm.org/urgent.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on G.I. Bill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161127024308/https://www.whitehouse.gov/video/President-Obama-Launches-Post-9/11-GI-Bill to https://www.whitehouse.gov/video/President-Obama-Launches-Post-9/11-GI-Bill
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.armyreserveeducation.com/Unsecured/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fMGIBWeb%2fCH_1607_Notification.aspx%3fSessionID%3d34ef341d-60ac-497e-a660-19450135795c&SessionID=34ef341d-60ac-497e-a660-19450135795c

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

No Legislative History

Hi. Currently, there is no legislative history at all in this article. Instead this article is inundated with information that should actually be in another article altogether. At one point in the last 40 years GI funding was significantly reduced (I believe it was entirely renamed and financially reduced), which in a quick glance, doesn't even seem to be mentioned.

Shouldn't there be legislative history to accompany the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, as is the customary procedure for all Wikipedia articles that entail US legislation? First of all, with nearly every article - especially significant ones - there is an Infobox that accompanies the article with its legislative history, such as the name of the bill, the numbering of the bill in the House and the Senate, the dates of passage, the dates of signage, etc. Shouldn't that really be included in this article? The initial legislation was one of the most important legislative feats in U.S. economic history, so shouldn't this article reflect that? Thanks for listening... Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Please! →More balance, more nuance, more thorough support.

This topic provides wonderful opportunities for promotion of one's own tribe, at the expense of one's perceived opponents; the existence of mountains of literature on the G.I. Bill makes it very easy to find one or two references supporting almost any point of view. Just for starters, consider these three sentences from the second paragraph of the lede: "It was largely designed and passed through Congress in 1944 by conservatives led by the American Legion who wanted to reward practically all wartime veterans. Since the First World War the Legion had been in the forefront of lobbying Congress for generous benefits for war veterans. Roosevelt, by contrast, wanted a much smaller and more elitist program." I find these claims, which hang, severally, by the flimsy threads of two references, highly suspect. Oh yes, we all know that conservatives have always been first in creating expensive social programs. Oh, and (Franklin) Roosevelt is of course well known for depriving the masses of benefits, in "elitist" fashion. What a bass-ackward fantasy! And a very easy one to support, if a single reference suffices for every claim or two, since thousands of sources exist on this subject, written from every possible polarity.

At a minimum, much more thorough citation is required here, from a wide variety of widely recognized sources. But there needs to be a rewrite here, since it is not at all hard to find sources that credit that penny-pinching elitist, FDR, much more than the generous conservatives.

It is not just a diametrically opposing point of view that should receive balancing representation here, however: It's also not difficult to find sources that credit the G.I. Bill to concerns that were shared by interests from across the political spectrum: The U.S. was about to have hundreds of thousands of (mainly) men return home and begin looking for work, in a rapidly cooling postwar economy. Hearts filled with gratitude, for sacrifices made and a job well done, might've been a motive for some; but a very big incentive, for leadership across the board, was the fear of massive unrest, even widespread rioting. This concern is well documented, too. Let's have a little balance, and some nuance, here.--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: If you see more than two references below, that is because they have accumulated from further up the page, to include ref's from someone else's posts. The only two that are relevant to my (immediately preceding) post are first Altschuler, then Mettler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk • contribs) 04:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

"IfYouDoIfYouDon't" seems to think there are lots of RS that he could cite--but he cites zero of them. He is right about "FDR - not elitist". I fixed the mistaken reference to FDR's ideas as "elitist." He was anti-elitist to him the college alumni were elites. FDR wanted welfare-like programs for poor people with vocational ed for jobs like mechanics. The bipartisan conservative coalition controlled Congress and opposed "welfare". Instead they wanted rewards for specific national service--especially military service. The GOP was based in among college alumni who were eager to grow their colleges. The key agencies designing and passing GI Bill were the American Legion and the VFW, which are typically called "conservative." There were lots of conservative Democrats in those days and they made the GI Bill bipartisan. A few more RS: 1) "The American Legion, which played an indispensable role in helping to lobby the GI Bill proposal through Congress" [Olson, 1973]; 2) blacks were neglected because GI Bill was "closely linked with the leadership of the avowedly segregated American Legion and the VFW" [Journal of Blacks in Higher Education 1994]; 3) "The American legion's version of the bill was introduced [in the House] by John E. Rankin, Democrat from Mississippi" (a leading conservative) [Ford & Miller - 1995]; 4) "the legislation was drafted by a representative of the American Legion " [B Bannier 2006]; 5) Theda Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (1992) emphasizes role of veterans groups; 5) " historian Kathleen Jill Frydl notes that the American Legion continued to fight against civilian benefits long after the GI Bill was enacted; it opposed not only the “intermingling of civilians and veterans” but also “the granting of any greater benefits to civilians than those given to veterans" [Canaday Journal of American History, 2003]. 6) "Veterans benefits were a bargain for conservatives who feared increasingly high taxation and the extension of New Deal national government agencies....Veterans benefits would go to a small group without long-term implications for others, and programs would be administered by the VA, diverting power from New Deal bureaucracies. Such benefits were likely to hamper New Dealers in their attempts to win a postwar battle over a permanent system of social policy for everyone." [Bruce Amenta Bold Relief (1998) p247.] Rjensen (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I see you're still pushing this partisan angle hard, in 2023. Based on https://fdr.blogs.archives.gov/2020/11/10/fdr-gi-bill/, it seems specious. It indicates FDR had put together and announced a large program. Reverting. Please don't put this partisan stuff back, at least not without sources. I don't see the sources you cited above long ago supporting this angle, and in part refute it-suggesting it was conservatives who didn't want a large program. Avoid WP:SYNTH. RudolfoMD (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Vietnam Era?

This article does not seem to say anything about educational benefits for Vietnam War veterans... or the period between the mid 1950's and the mid 1970's.

Also the VEAP period is not described in adequate detail. I joined the Army in 1983 and fell under that. I don't know the exact details but we had to choose to participate, we had to pay into the program, and I recall the total benefit was uselessly low, like in the $5000 to $8000 range maybe. Basically we got the shaft.

I assume the various "chapter" headings are accurate, but wouldn't it be less confusing to downplay the legal chapter bit and instead put the major programs/eras in a chronological sequence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.20.170 (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Article is fair.

Re. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G.I._Bill&diff=next&oldid=1176246252 some of that may be true about contemporary VA benefits, but this is about the GI bill. RudolfoMD (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@RudolfoMD, your comment is unclear. Are you objecting to the restored content in the diff you link or supporting it? Schazjmd (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Neither. It's complicated. And since I posted that, my view changed -- a bit. I noticed: The article is about the GI Bill, but kind of also but mostly not about what are still called GI Bill benefits. (The article notes, "The original G.I. Bill expired in 1956, but the term "G.I. Bill" is still used to refer to programs created to assist American military veterans." and the gov't has a popular "GI Bill Comparison Tool" for example. So the text the link I gave highlights supports some key claims in the removed content, but with respect to current GI Bill benefits, AKA VA benefits. And it provides valuable context and is perhaps relatively balanced on the topic it addresses. So I'm just noting a source that provides useful content for future improvements. But with respect to how the original GI bill helped with housing, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e68CoE70Mk8 is informative too, though I presume CollegeHumor is not RS. RudolfoMD (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HIST 463 Consumerism in Modern America

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Wcubias.

— Assignment last updated by Heinzam (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)