These facts would indicate that all is not wrong with the veterans' educational program. However, the financial strain on veteran students appears to be increasing and a thorough congressional reconsideration of the whole level of subsistence payments is urgent and inevitable. DEAR MR. RYDER: Your letter of inquiry addressed to Brother President Thomas of this institution, wherein you suggest that comments be made regarding the adequacy of subsistence allowance now paid to veterans, was referred to this office for reply. In view of our familiarity with the problems and hardships that have arisen through the efforts of the veteran to maintain himself on the subsistence payments as now established, it is our considered opinion that the said established subsistence levels are grossly inadequate for veterans living in metropolitan areas such as this. We understand, of course, there is some question as to whether or not Congress has intended that the GI bill should provide subsistence in the amount necessary to meet expenses in full. We admit there is some ground for substantiating the position held by many that the original intention of Congress was to provide a measure of assistance to veterans who wish to avail themselves of the educational opportunities under the GI bill. Since, however, the question is directed specifically to the success, or lack of it, that veterans are experiencing in meeting expenses in view of the high living costs now prevailing, our answer is definitely negative. It is our opinion that the veteran, if single, should receive a subsistence allowance of $90 per month, and in the case of the married veteran, a minimum of $130 per month. It is unfortunate that the GI bill does not provide a graduated scale of allowances which would take into consideration the number of individuals who are dependent upon the veteran for actual support. In summation, we might say subsistence allowances as now paid the veteran in attendance under Public Law 16 would probably meet the present needs of veterans and enable them to pursue their chosen courses of education unhampered by the financial worries that are now characteristic of the present subsistence situation. We wish to thank you for this opportunity to express our opinions on these matters of vital concern to the veteran and his welfare. It is our sincere hope that Congress will shortly take steps to ameliorate the conditions under which veterans are now working. Sincerely yours, Mr. MELVIN RYDER, JOHN A. COSSA, Director, Student Personnel. Army Times, Washington, D. C. BOSTON UNIVERSITY, Boston, Mass., December 21, 1946. DEAR MR. RYDER: In reply to your letter of December 5 let me suggest that a student veteran can hardly live on $65 a month ($90 a month if married) in the Boston metropolitan area. There is considerable doubt, however, that Congress ever intended the $65 or $90 to pay all expenses. These sums are subsistence allowances, so designated, not subsistence. Many nonveteran students at Boston University traditionally earn a part of the costs of their education. Within limits the process is educationally sound. The policy of limiting a student's earnings to $175 a month ($200 a month if married) is less clearly justified, however. It is difficult to see how a married student veteran could support a family on $50 a week. While no one wishes to see people with incomes of $10,000 paid Government educational benefits in addition thereto, it is manifestly unfair to permit the fortunate student with a large income from investments to secure full Government benefits while his harder working brother is deprived of these benefits the minute his earnings go above a certain maximum, as is now the case. The present limitations on income are too low, and these limitations should apply to sums unearned as well as earned. A student without dependents should not be penalized, say, if his total income is less than $2,000, nor a married veteran if his does not exceed $3,500. Faithfully yours, DANIEL L. MARSH, President. Mr. MELVIN RYDER, Army Times, Washington, D. C. THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, DEAR MR. RYDER: The enclosed copy of a report made to the American Council on Education will indicate how the GI students are making out with present subsistence allowances at the University of Wisconsin. Also the University of Wisconsin Veterans Club is at this time compiling the results of a cost-of-living survey recently conducted among veterans on the campus. I shall forward a copy of this report as soon as it is available. As a matter of fact, I have been withholding a reply to your query until results of the afore-mentioned survey would be available. However, the group has been delayed in the compiling of its findings, and I do not wish to leave you completely in the dark re the veterans' situation here at the University of Wisconsin. As for my conclusions pertaining to the advisability of increasing veterans' subsistence: Congress initially had in mind providing the veteran student with a purchasing power based on existing prices as of January 1946. Many veterans entered into long-range educational programs for themselves, relying on that purchasing power. The increased cost of living should be considered as sufficient grounds for an upward adjustment of subsistence rates. I would also favor an increase over and above that for all veterans with one or more children. Very truly yours, THEODORE W. ZALLMAN, Director. COPY OF REPORT TO AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION Subject: Veterans' subsistence. DECEMBER 10, 1946. 1. Total full-time enrollment this semester or quarter: 18,700. 2. Number of full-time veteran students under Public Law 346: 10,500. Public Law 16: 600. 3. Number of veteran students unmarried: 8,240; married: 2,860; with one or more children: 1,000 (estimate). 4. Estimate of the present cost of board and room per month. 1 The university trailer project is located on the campus, and accommodates 191 veteran families. Rental averages $27.50 per unit. Badger Village, a university housing project 34 miles from the campus, accommodates 400 veteran families at present with an expected capacity of 600 within the next 6 months. Rental averages $25 per unit. Transportation is provided by the university at a minimum expense; 10 cents per trip. Truax Field: 101 apartment units for married veterans without children, located 5 miles from the campus. Rental, $30 per unit. 5. Approximate percent of increase which the above figures represent as compared with 1 year ago: 15 percent. 6. Percent (approximate) of students living on the campus: Unmarried, 19 percent; married, 8 percent. 7. Number of veteran students, if any, who have left college because of the maximum limit of earned income plus subsistence ($175 if no dependents; $200 if with dependents): Unknown. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATION, Minneapolis 14, January 4, 1946. Mr. MELVIN RYDER, Editor, Veterans' Edition of Army Times, Washington 10, D. C. DEAR MR. RYDER: You recently wrote President J. L. Morrill, of the University of Minnesota, concerning subsistence allowances for GI students. President Morrill asked me to reply to your letter. As a first step I conferred with Mr. W. C. Rindsland, who is director of our bureau of veterans' affairs. He has close contact with the students. May I quote from a memorandum which he has sent to me? "It seems to be a well-established fact, from a study of the interview records in the bureau of veterans' affairs, that the majority of veterans are not satisfied with the amount of subsistence and are having difficulty. A petition signed by 3,000 veterans in attendance at this university was sent to the Veterans' Administration, asking for an increase in subsistence allowance. "A study made of the veterans leaving the university for financial reasons during the first 4 weeks of this quarter shows that of 313 veterans who have left, 48 canceled their enrollment for definite financial reasons." The problem that you pose raises the whole question of whether or not it is the intention of the Congress that the subsistence allowance should cover completely or essentially in full the living costs of veterans under the GI bill. There obviously are two points of view in this matter. It is reflected even within our own veterans' bureau. On the one hand, some of the professional staff there hold the opinion that the subsistence allowance should be increased for all veterans to the same extent that the average cost of living has increased since the amendment authorizing the present allowances was passed. On the other hand, some of the staff do not subscribe to the foregoing attitude except in the case of married veterans with children. They point out that it was never the intention of the Congress that the Government should defray all expenses in connection with veterans' education. Nor was the subsistence allowance established on a cost-of-living basis. Perhaps one solution to the problem would be removal of the income limitation, which became a law on August 20, 1946. Personally, I think there is much to commend such removal. DEAR MR. RYDER: In your letter of December 6 you asked for comments on the present subsistence allowances granted to veterans attending the University of Utah. A recent study of the employment status of veterans enrolled at the University of Utah for the autumn quarter, 1946-47, under the readjustment training program revealed that 62.2 percent of the veterans were not employed while attending school; 1.7 percent were self-employed; 8.6 percent were irregularly employed; while 27.5 percent were regularly employed while attending school. Seventy-six, or approximately 4 percent of the veterans employed while attending school, were earning more than $110 per month and, therefore, received partial or no subsistence allowance. We understand that it was not the intention of the Seventy-eighth Congress when it passed Public Law 346 to provide a subsistence allowance sufficient to pay the living expenses of veterans who might enroll in school. The office of the coordinator of veterans at the University of Utah has had merely a few declare their opinion that the subsistence allowance should be increased. From all indications, it does not seem imperative that an increase in subsistence allow ance be immediately provided. We are inclined to believe that the income restriction, while attending school, placed upon veterans by Public Law 679 should be repealed. Every possible incentive for ambition, work, and individual enterprise should be provided to all. Too much financial aid to the able may be detrimental. I sincerely hope that the above information is of some value to you. A. R. OLPIN, President. THE STATE COLLEGE OF WASHINGTON, Mr. MELVIN RYDER, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Pullman, Wash., January 2, 1947. Editor, Veterans' Edition of Army Times, Washington 10, D. C. DEAR MR. RYDER: This is in answer to your inquiry of December 6, 1946, in which you asked how GI students are making out with present subsistence allowances. It is evident at first that none of the veteran students can live in this area on their present subsistence without varying amounts of additional income. Single veteran students can get by if they do some work either during school or during summer vacations. Married veteran students find that $90 per month is inadequate and that the wife must work to help meet living expenses. Married veterans with children have larger expenses and, consequently, a greater problem. Because most of the wives of these veterans cannot work to supplement the $90 per month, it is often difficult for these students to remain in school. Local statistics from the Veterans' Administration office indicate that about three out of four of the veterans dropping out of school are married and must leave because of financial reasons. If allowances for veterans are to be increased, first consideration should probably be given to married students with children. Of equal importance is the problem of married couples, many of whom are financially hard pressed to exist on their $90 subsistence allowances. Single men can most easily supplement their $65 per month subsistence allowance and the problem of increased allowances for this group should probably be considered after married student veterans. I would be pleased to receive a copy of your survey report when it is completed. Sincerely yours, E. H. HOPKINS, Assistant to the President and Dean of Students. Mr. MELVIN RYDER, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, Charlottesville, December 10, 1946. Editor, Veterans Edition of Army Times, Washington 10, D. C. DEAR MR. RYDER: I have received your letter of December 4, and can advise that the GI students are having to supplement their subsistence allowance by outside work. Our dean of counseling of veteran students seems to think that the married persons should have their allowance increased by $50 per month and the single by $25 per month. Very truly yours, J. L. NEWCOMв, President. Mr. MELVIN RYDER, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, EXTENSION DIVISION, Charlottesville, Va., January 31, 1947. Editor, Veterans Edition of Army Times, Washington 10, D. C. DEAR MR. RYDER: Your letter of January 22, 1947, was referred to this office by the president of the university. The home study bureau of the University of Virginia offers correspondence courses on a collegiate level and for collegiate credit to veterans under Public Laws 16 and 346. The courses that are offered are identical with those offered to other civilians within and outside the State. I am sending to you under separate cover a catalog listing those courses we do offer in addition to detailed information which may be of some service to you. I am quite sure that the catalog will be sufficient to answer most of your questions. I might say that most of the veterans taking correspondence courses under this bureau are paying for the courses themselves and are saving their benefits for future residence work. The reason for this is due to the fact that subsistence allowances are not paid for home study by the Veterans' Administration. I hope this letter will be of some service to you. Sincerely yours, M. ROBERT ALLEN, in Charge, Home Study. Mr. MELVIN RYDER, UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT, AND STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, Editor, Veterans' Edition of Army Times, Washington 10. D. C. DEAR MR. RYDER: President Millis has referred your recent letter to my desk for reply. I'lease accept my apologies for this late handling but only the continued pressure of work which is the result of the unprecedented increase in student enrollment causes this situation. The University of Vermont has 280 married veterans enrolled. One hundred and fifteen of these students live with their families in apartments operated and made available through FPHA. Contacts with veterans indicate that it is increasingly difficult for married students to live on their monthly check from the Government. Those who have savings are using these savings regularly. Others have exhausted their savings. I cannot commit the University of Vermont to any campaign for additional benefits to veterans but I can personally argue that additional funds are needed by many, especially those who are married. I have the feeling that the number of dependents should also be taken into account. My own analysis of living costs for those living in the apartments provided by us and which are located 4 miles from the campus indicates that a minimum of $120 per month is needed to pay for rent (adjusted to a minimum), bus fare, lunches on the campus, and a reasonable diet for the family. That figure does not permit the purchase of heavy clothing, medical, and dental work, or recreation. Cordially yours, Mr. MELVIN Ryder, ORVILLE DAHL, Dean. THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, Editor, Veterans' Edition of Army Times, Washington 10, D. C. MY DEAR MR. RYDER: Your letter of December 5, addressed to President Bevis, has been referred to me for reply. With reference to the GI students, married and sing'e, I would say that we hear very little complaining from veterans or their families with regard to their subsistence allowances. Naturally, a few of them have some difficulty, but most of them are able to manage. In my judgment, the veterans here, 14,000 or more, are very grateful to a gratéful Government for the present subsistence allowance. Sincerely yours, B. L. STRADLEY, Vice President. COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY, Williamsburg, Va., December 18, 1946. Mr. MELVIN RYDER, Veterans' Edition of Army Times, Washington 10, D. C. MY DEAR MR. RYDER: Your letter of December 6, 1946, addressed to John E. Pomfret, president of the College of William and Mary, has been referred to me for reply. I regret to advise you that students living at the College of William and Mary, under Public Law 346, Seventy-eighth Congress, are finding it impossible to meet |