Marhoff’s Blog

Dulce et decorum est… – but don’t try to take all of your classes on-line if you want full veteran’s benefits under the new “Post-9/11 GI Bill.”

Once again, the US government has passed legislation which directly discriminates against folks trying to better themselves by taking college courses on-line. This time making the situation even worse by penalizing some of the most valiant and dedicated men and women I have ever met – those who served in the US military!

To quote an article published in Inside Higher Ed’s January 23, 2009 edition:

“Under the new GI Bill, which goes into effect in August, veterans who study entirely online will be eligible for generous tuition and book benefits. But they will be ineligible for a third benefit of the bill — a housing allowance that’s available to their peers attending brick and mortar institutions more than half-time. The amount of the housing allowance varies by location, but, on average, is valued at $1,250 per month.”

This is a pretty major disincentive for students who need or simply want the convenience and flexibility of on-line courses. Also note that, in my experience, most people taking classes on-line are doing so because they are working in order to support themselves, or they are caring for loved ones. Thus thay are giving back to our country while pursuing their degree, unlike many more traditional students in on-ground programs.

Apologists for this discriminatory and veteran penalizing provision of the new bill (which seems a vast improvement over the older Montgomery GI Bill in a whole lot of other ways) generally make invalid or nonsensical arguments. Here are a few examples:

• “Since the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) will be paid to on-campus students based on the zip code of the school, we couldn’t figure out how much to pay on-line students.” Well, that’s just stupid. First of all, why not pay it based on the zip code of the school, or set a flat fee, or pay it based on the zip code where they live? They are basing the BAH paid to students on the basic allowance for housing payable to a military E-5 with dependents, even though not all recipients were E-5’s when they were discharged, so if they can set a flat rate for grade, why can’t they come up with one for location?
• “This could lead to fraud.” OK, so what else is new? So can any government program where money is involved. How does penalizing on-line students stop fraud? In fact, since I know of at least one institution which does not report or differentiate distance courses in any way, this provision of the bill is more likely to cause fraud than to prevent it!
• “ We want students to have a ‘real’ college experience.” So accredited on-line courses aren’t real? Oh, wait, you meant a dormitory experience? OK, then why are you paying the BAH to students who don’t live in dorms, or who go to community colleges which don’t have dorms? In fact, why will you pay the BAH if the student takes even one course per semester “on-ground” and only penalize students taking all of their courses on-line?
• “The BAH will help the student with travel costs and/or other costs associated with attending school.” Then why are you calling it a housing allowance? Why not call it a travel or dorm allowance? And again, why will you pay the BAH if the student takes even one course per semester “on-ground” and only penalize students taking all of their courses on-line?

And there are more, but all of them just as stupid.

Perhaps I’m over sensitive (well, actually, I know I’m over sensitive on this issue) and perhaps I overly opinionated (well, actually, I know I’m overly opinionated on this issue), but it’s OK because I’m right and they’re wrong.

If you don’t believe me, do your own research:
GI Bill Pamphlet
VA FAQ Site
Direct link to problem area
Inside Higher Ed article 2008/12/29
Inside Higher Ed article 2009/01/23

What’s your opinion on this isue? Please post comments!

–
Marhoff