Impact of the "GI Bills" on the Educational Level of the Male Population
Abstract
This paper is an attempt to evaluate the effects of the post-war educational rehabilitation programs for veterans (“GI Bills”) on the educational composition of the male population of the United States. Various sources of statistical data are integrated to produce estimates of the effects. The analysis leads to the conclusion that, even if the benefits of the GI education and training programs had not been available, the sharply rising trend in the formal educational level of the male population observed before the war would have continued at substantially the same general level. The GI programs are viewed primarily as responses to the growing demand for formal education in a society where social organization and value complexes were undergoing change.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In 1947, 7 of 10 men enrolled in college or universities were veterans of World War II.
“In 1947 7 of 10 men enrolled in college or universities were veterans of World War II.”
From An Historical Framework for Cohort Differences in Intelligence (2005) · cites this paper as Nam, 1964
In 1956, 25% of all male college students were veterans of the Korean War.
“Similarly, in 1956 25% of all male college students were veterans of the Korean War (Nam, 1964).”
From An Historical Framework for Cohort Differences in Intelligence (2005) · cites this paper as Nam, 1964
One of the most prominent examples of targeted federal funding are the postwar rehabilitation programs for veterans, known as the GI Bills.
“One of the most prominent examples are the postwar rehabilitation programs for veterans, known as the GI Bills (Nam, 1964; Sampson & Laub, 1996).”
From An Historical Framework for Cohort Differences in Intelligence (2005) · cites this paper as Nam, 1964
Cited by
Sorted by citations
An Historical Framework for Cohort Differences in Intelligence
Schaie, K. W., Willis, S. L., & Pennak, S. (2005) · Research in Human Development · doi:10.1080/15427609.2005.9683344 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
- Authors
- Nam, C. B.
- Affiliations
- Florida State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Nam, Charles B.
- Venue
- Social Forces
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1964-10
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 26
- ISSN
- 0037-7732 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2088431776
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 6.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Forces (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
- Social Sciences › Education › Education and Military Integration
- Social Sciences › Education › Education Systems and Policy
- Keywords
- GI Bill, veterans' education, educational attainment, male population, educational demand, social change, United States
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
