all of their living expenses out of the allotment which has been granted. This applies to both married and single veterans. Our own situation, of course, is somewhat aggravated by the fact that most of our students must incur snbstantial traveling expenses in connection with attendance at William and Mary. We have excellent dormitory facilities at a very moderate cost and our dining-hall costs are substantially below the dining-hall costs throughout the country. Very cordially yours, SHARVY G. UMBECK, Dean. Mr. MELVIN RYDER, DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, PERSONAL BUREAU, Hanover, N. H., December 18, 1946. Editor, Veterans' Edition of Army Times, Washington 10, D. C. DEAR MR. RYDER: Your letter to Mr. Albert I. Dickerson, the executive officer of the college, has been sent over to me for reply. Unmarried GI students who have preferred to attend Dartmouth which, as other New England colleges, is a bit more expensive than a State or municipal university, are managing to balance their budgets by augmenting the Government benefits through their own savings, through help from home, or by parttime work during vacations or term time. In a few exceptional cases, the college has been called upon for cash assistance. Married students, veterans or civilians, who have given careful thought in advance of marriage to the problems which might confront them are likewise able to depend on savings, on summer or part-time employment, or on assistance from home. Many wives who have been employed before marriage prefer to keep busy by continuing to work in Hanover. The benefits under the present GI bill seem to be reasonably generous and fairly adequate for those who are ready to live economically and who likewise wish to contribute something toward their education through their own resources and efforts. Sincerely yours, FRANCIS J. A. NEEF, Director. Mr. MELVIN RYDER, COLORADO COLLEGE, OFFICE OF DEAN OF MEN, Colorado Springs, Colo., December 9, 1946. Editor, Veterans Edition of Army Times, Washington 10, D. C. DEAR MR. RYDER: In answer to your inquiry regarding the sufficiency of subsistence allowances for veterans attending Colorado College, I wish to testify that the amounts authorized are inadequate. The unmarried veteran can barely get by on the $65 monthly allowance, and the majority of them must supplement their subsistence payments with funds received from part-time employment, loans, or earnings accumulated during vacation periods. However, the single veteran is better situated financially than the average prewar nonveteran student, and I believe that the responsibility of paying part of the way should rest with the unmarried veteran. The married veteran with no children cannot attend college and support his family on $90 per month, and in the majority of the cases, if there are no children in the family, the veteran's wife has to accept outside employment. I believe a minimum of $125 per month should be authorized the married veteran. The greatest difficulty rests with the married veteran who has children and the wife cannot accept outside employment. I believe that some provision should have been included in the bill authorizing additional payments for married veterans with children. I believe that a basic allowance of $125 plus $25 for each child would permit many of our married veterans with children to continue in college. Very truly yours, JUAN REID, Adviser of Men. Mr. MELVIN RYDER, MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY, COORDINATOR FOR VETERANS' AFFAIRS, Milwaukee 3, Wis., December 12, 1946. Editor, Veterans Edition of Army Times, Washington 10, D. C. DEAR MR. RYDER: The average cost for a single veteran for shelter, food, and clothing runs to $79 monthly. The same items for a married veteran without a child amount to $162.. DEAR MR. RYDER: I have your letter of December 5, in which you request an expression of my opinion as to how our veteran students are faring with their present subsistence allowances, and whether or not these allowances should be increased. There is, of course, no question but that the veterans, like every other segment of our population, are finding increasing difficulty in meeting rising living costs from their fixed income. On the other hand, I can see no guaranty that living costs will not continue to spiral upward in proportion to such increases as may be made in subsistence allowances, salaries, wages, etc. In other words, if the dollar is to have a constantly decreasing purchasing power, does not the answer to the economic problem confronting America lie in more rather than in less stabilization? I find no indication that the wage and salary increases granted since the close of the war have had any tendency to lessen the cost of living. On the contrary, it is common knowledge that the cost of living continues to rise. In like manner, I can see no guaranty that increased subsistence allowances to the veterans will afford them anything more than perhaps a brief respite. Please do not get the impression that we at the University of Alabama are not sympathetic to the plight of the veteran student seeking to live on $65 or $90 per month, as the case may be. I simply do not feel that increased subsistence allowances provide an answer to the problem. DEAR MR. RYDER: I do not have any definite figures concerning the veterans at the University of Chicago and their personal problems concerning their subsistence allowances, but I do know that all of those with whom I have talked have told me that it is impossible for them to live on their present allowances. Many of them have accepted part-time work, the wives of many of the married students are at present employed, and many others are using their savings. It would be difficult to make an estimate of exactly what is needed in addition to the allowances already being received without more accurate figures. but I do know that the present allowances are not adequate. Sincerely yours, ROBERT M. STROZIER, Dean of Students. Mr. MELVIN RYDER, Veterans Edition of Army Times, THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS, OFFICE OF THE CHANCELOR, Washington 10, D. C. DEAR MR. RYDER: Chancelor Deane W. Malott has referred your letter of December 5, 1946, to me for reply. In order to get a view of the living costs of veterans enrolled at the University of Kansas, I discussed the matter with Mr. E. R. Elbel, director of veterans' affairs; Mr. Irvin Youngberg, dormitory director; and Mr. Willis Tompkins, assistant dean of men. They are of the opinion that it requires careful budgeting on the part of a married veteran to stay within the limits of the present subsistence allotment. Many are meeting the increased living cost by supplementing their income through jobs at the university and in the community. In many cases the wives of married veterans are gainfully employed in the city and at the university. The university is helping by arranging for and providing inexpensive housing. As a general rule, it appears that the single men are experiencing no difficulty in making out with the present subsistence allowance. I would want to make a much more careful survey before commenting upon your question as to whether or not the allowance should be increased. I shall be interested in learning the experiences of veterans in other educational institutions. Washington 10, D. C. DEAR MR. RYDER: In response to your recent question regarding the experience of GI students at Stanford on their present subsistence allowances, I am glad to be able to send you a brief statement summarizing a recent statistical study supervised by a member of the faculty of our Graduate School of Business. The attached statement, which is in the form of a news story printed 2 or 3 weeks ago in the Stanford Daily, accurately summarizes the reported experience of our single men and our married couples. It is apparent from this analysis that the present subsistence allowances, both for single men and married men, approximately cover the cost of rent, board, and laundry, but leave nothing for recreation and miscellaneous expenses. Although GI students, as well as others, are being forced to draw upon other resources to meet their costs of living, the evidence at hand so far does not in my judgment make imperative an increase in present subsistence allowances. Our experience has not shown that veterans are being forced to give up their educational programs for financial reasons. Neither, so far as the record shows, are their scholastic efforts suffering from the stress of financial hardships. I do not feel, however, that I am as yet in a position to draw a final conclusion concerning the status of our veteran students. We have in process a study of the experience of our veteran students in the fall quarter just closed. When the findings of this study are available, we will be better able to see the problem in a proper perspective. Sincerely yours, DONALD B. TRESIDDER. VETERANS' COST OF LIVING SURVEYED AT STANFORD Veterans at Stanford University can't live on their Government allowances, but are making up the difference from savings or outside jobs, according to a survey by Professor Spurr's statistics students in the Graduate School of Business. Single men make out best on this allowance. Monthly expenses are shown below for the typical unmarried veteran who lives in a room away from home and draws $65 a month plus tuition from the Government. The second column shows the minimum amount necessary to live in reasonable comfort, though some get along on less. Deducting the Government's $65, this leaves $55 a month (or at least $25) to be raised elsewhere. Where does it come from? The chief source is savings, which are drawn on by 85 percent of the single men. About 30 percent have outside jobs, averaging 12 hours a week; some 20 percent are helped by their parents; but almost none has had to borrow money. Married men spend more, but their wives help out. The following expenses are typical for the veteran who lives with his wife in a house or apartment, has his meals in, and received $90 a month plus tuition. This doesn't count children, who add about $10 a month each. How do the married veterans meet this $90 a month drain ($50 at the least) over and above the $90 Government allowance? To be sure, 50 percent draw on savings and 23 percent have jobs averaging 15 hours a week. About 10 percent get help from their parents, while hardly any borrow money. But 63 percent of the wives work, most of them full time, and they make up the difference. Where there are children, 75 percent of the veterans must draw on savings and 37 percent work part time, since only 12 percent of their wives can leave the children to take jobs. Mr. MELVIN RYDER, LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Editor, Veterans Edition of Army Times, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. RYDER: In the absence of President Hatcher, who is ill, I wish to reply to your letter of December 5, concerning how GI students at Louisiana State University are making out with the present subsistence allowance and the higher living costs. Based upon our inquiry, we have reached the conclusion that single men are able to get along very nicely on the $65 per month. They all agree that $65 per month will pay the necessary expenses of attending school; however, social life is naturally limited. There are 1,259 married veterans attending the university, and according to our inquiries they are unable to meet all their living costs with the $90 per month received from the Veterans' Administration. It is necessary that all of them draw upon their savings; receive subsistence from their parents, or to the veteran or his wife must work. In the light of the above, it is obvious that increased subsistence should be given to married veterans or veterans with dependents. We doubt sincerely the advisability of increasing the subsistence for single veterans. Yours very truly, FRED C. FREY, Dean of the University for and in the Absence of the President. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA, MELVIN RYDER, Esq., Editor, Veterans' Edition of Army Times, Washington 10, D. C. MY DEAR MR. RYDER: We have run some investigations having to do with the income and expenditures of both married and single veteran students at the University of North Dakota. We think that living and other expenses, except fixed overhead, such as insurance, on the campus of the University of North Dakota is lower than that in most schools. Nevertheless, there is room rent, board, insurance, and other items that would seem to lend support to the belief that $90 per month is more appropriate and equitable than the present $65 per month. It is true also at this university that there are opportunities to supplement income on the part of the unmarried men. Hence this statement may not be valid over the United States. The general outlook seems to be this: A man can exist on $65 per month and can supplement this income by work in the summer if he wishes to attend only two semesters per year. However, many of these boys are trying to recover from 1 to several years' time lost in the Army and wish to attend school 12 months in the year. Probably the figure of $90 per month during the time that the university is in session will do for the veteran those things contemplated in the planning section in which such support has been discussed. The figure of $65 per month is rather conservative even in the University of North Dakota. When one considers the case of the married veterans, some of whom have children, a different picture is indicated. Apartments are hard to find, and when obtained are rather high priced. At the present rate of income for married veterans there would be a tendency to depress the standard of living to the extent that the psychological effect is unfavorable. Some of these men have children now and others will before the period of their study is over. A fair rent in this city is $30 per month; provisions for eating will account for another $60 per month for a man and wife and possibly one child; and insurance and incidentals, which cannot be escaped, indicate a figure over and above. There are certain societies, educational and otherwise, that veterans wish to join, or perhaps they are keeping up dues in societies in which they held membership before going to war. Minor or major doctor bills, dental care, druggist bills, and other contingencies of one kind and another must be in one's mind. Again, we have in mind the University of North Dakota and not the world at large. Here it would seem that if a veteran is married and has a family, present or prospective, he will need $120 or $125 to provide for the minimum essentials. If you fall much lower than this there will be a tendency to tangle present economics with future education. These men have done a splendid job and are not asking for anything. In fact, they would resent any implication that anything be given to them. They are merely making up lost time in the best way that they know how. Any money spent for the education of these men, when they number millions, will be reflected in the prosperity of the country in the years to come. I may even make it stronger than this. Their present expenditures will be reflected in their attitude toward their own country and toward world-wide problems, without a doubt. A rich and fair Government must permit these facts to enter into their thinking when considering the question of meeting expenditures of veterans in the universities. It is not a personal matter at all, but the whole cultural level of the United States is involved. I hope that this is the kind of a statement that you wish. You are at liberty to use any part of it in any way that you wish. You are also at liberty to call for other opinions or information. Very truly yours, 61876-47-5 JOHN C. WEST, President. |