Article 1: (Sander, 2012)
The G.I. Bill benefits make veterans a target of corporations that offer services and goods that qualify for discounted pricing under veterans support program. As a result, veterans have become victims of aggressive and deceptive targeting by universities touting military-friendly policies. Many voices are coming up to challenge the integrity of the G.I. Bill. The author talks about critics who say that the bill provides many loopholes for veterans to squander their benefits. The problem is that the legitimate information sources for veterans are not as aggressive as marketers are. On their part, private colleges are protecting themselves against allegations by joining sensitization programs for veterans to minimize exploitation.
Article 2: (Serow, 2004)
The report shows that the G.I. Bill was a radical policy undertaking by the U.S. government, whose impact on society and the economy was mainly positive in the first decades of operations. However, in recent decades have come under attack, but it still appears triumphant. The article explains how different political parties enacted the bill and hails its focus on individual discretion in the use of benefits of education purposes. The article claims that the original law was superior to the later versions. It serves as a symbol for demarcation of earlier and later stages of education development (Serow, 2004).
Article 3: (Toby, 2010)
Before the World War II, scholarships were scarce and only available to students with exceptional academic abilities. The article by Toby (2010) explains how scholarships shifted from academic achievement to federal financial aid. It describes the way federally subsidized student loans work to help needy students afford higher education. Thus, colleges play a role in guiding students about repayment option and help them to make realistic career choices. However, there have been problems with such programs of financial aid in education. Many people have ended up with diplomas that are not marketable and are unable to repay loans. The victim ends up having additional problems in the social life as their lack of jobs or poor credit record hinders opportunities (Toby, 2010).
Article 4: (Cellini, 2010)
According to Cellini (2010), the role of federal and state financial aid programs in increasing access to education creates mixed results. By examining the role of support in two-year degree and certificate programs with part of the emphasis being on the G.I. Bill program, the author shows that gains in enrollment in the private colleges due to the aid do not hinder gains in enrollment in public community colleges. The author assumes that each country constitutes a separate market, but also uses a measurement error correction to capture cases where students attend a school outside their county.
Article 5: (Bower, 2004)
Bower (2004) examines the history of college aid in the United States, using Ohio as a case study. The author shows that the financial aid opened up colleges to depend on financial aid from federal and state government. Thus, colleges that sought to bridge the inequality gap between institutions looked up to the government for assistance. On their part, they shaped their policies to match government aid requirements such as those contained in G.I. Bill. Overall, Ohio State universities’ administrators supported welfare programs that assisted both institutions and students.
Article 6: (Fincher, 2002)
The G.I. Bill is part of the subject of the report by Fincher (2002) on the history of higher education. The report describes the democratization of education due to financial aid meant for assimilation of World War II veterans. The bill’s effect is placed in the context of other revolutions in higher education in the United States. In addition, Fincher (2002) narrates the mistakes of the G.I. Bill such as the exclusion of university and college professors for particular areas of research. The author then provides an account of other indirect developments in higher education over the last few decades.
References
Bower, K. P. (2004). “A favored child of the state”: Federal student aid at Ohio colleges and universities 1934-1943. History of Education Quarterly, 44(3), 364-387.
Cellini, S. R. (2010). Financial aid and for-profit colleges: Does aid encourage entry? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(3), 526-552.
Fincher, C. (2002). Institute of Higher Education: An oral history (1964-2002).Web.
Sander, L. (2012). With GI Bill’s billions at stake, college compete to lure veterans. Chronicle of Higher Education, 58(35), A1-A8.
Serow, R. C. (2004). Policy as a symbol: Title II of the 1944 G.I. Bill. Review of Higher Education, 27(4), 481-499.
Toby, J. (2010). How scholarships morphed into financial aid. Academic Questions, 23(3), 298-310.