My guess in the 1940s, most women didn't attend college after high school. And most young men were in the armed services.
Who were the college students during WW2?
My guess in the 1940s, most women didn't attend college after high school. And most young men were in the armed services.
Who were the college students during WW2?
On a serious note: check out this: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf
Of particular interest to you will be figure 2. There were women in college in that era.
There were women in college in that era.
Yes. The college in my novel is the University of Texas at Austin. I found this about UT: "When the university opened its doors in 1883, 58 of its 221 students — 26 percent — were women."
What about men? I found an article on Harvard during that period that said they provided classes for the military. In fact, that's what kept them afloat. But I don't know if UT did that.
Could the men at the colleges at that time all be medically unqualified for military service? I couldn't find any other deferments that weren't job related which means they were working and not in college.
Could the men at the colleges at that time all be medically unqualified for military service? I couldn't find any other deferments that weren't job related which means they were working and not in college.
I know that during Vietnam, men could get draft deferments by going to college. Might it have been the same during WWII?
Also pacifists and other conscientious objectors.
ETA: Yep there were draft deferments for college students during WWII.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/defense/energy-government-and-defense-magazines/conscription-world-war-ii
Despite the theme of universal sacrifice, at the height of the war in 1944, critics claimed that the deferment process had become captive to politics, special interests, and to local biases. Selective Service was used as an indirect agent to keep labor in line by threatening induction. It was also used to balance the needs for industrial and military manpower. Occupation was a direct factor in determining deferment eligibility. Throughout the war various groups demanded and received deferments, including the medical community, college students, educators, scientists, agriculture, and the war industry.
I know that during Vietnam, men could get draft deferments by going to college. Might it have been the same during WWII?
Also pacifists and other conscientious objectors.
Not what I found. They could go to college until they turned 18 but then were draftable.
The CO deferments I found either still served, but not in combat roles, or in jobs that supported the war effort. Not college.
Not what I found.
Go back and look at the update I made to my comment above. Yes, there were draft deferments for college students.
Yes, there were draft deferments for college students.
This is the article I found on WW2 draft status:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Training_and_Service_Act_of_1940
There's nothing about college students.
ETA: There were "Deferred student" classifications listed, but they expired on 8/31/41.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1936/10/7/freshman-ages-pwith-the-average-age/
Last year the average age of 988 new Freshmen was 18 years, three and a half months.
That's from 1939
There's nothing about college students.
That doesn't mean they weren't given draft deferments later on during WWII.
That doesn't mean they weren't given draft deferments later on during WWII.
There were "Deferred student" classifications listed, but they expired on 8/31/41.
You'll have to pay some money to get the full article, but this will give you a much better source on it.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1977574?seq=1
There were "Deferred student" classifications listed, but they expired on 8/31/41.
And that says nothing about whether or not more deferments were granted in 1942.
And that says nothing about whether or not more deferments were granted in 1942.
The link I posted of the selective service classifications included start and end dates for each deferment. The dates include all the war years.
The link I posted of the selective service classifications
Was to Wikipedia, useful occasionally, but not something I would generally consider a definitive source, especially when there are other sources that disagree with it.
Yes, there were draft deferments for college students.
Younger/youngest son's. I had four uncles who served or died in service during WWII. Grandmother sent a letter to local draft board requesting remaining two sons not be accepted in the services. They couldn't even volunteer and be accepted - and spent '42-45 as part of very few males attending a local college.
Throughout the war various groups demanded and received deferments, including the medical community, college students, educators, scientists, agriculture, and the war industry.
The article I read on deferments said after Pearl Harbor, college students were deferred only until their 18th b-day.
The article I read on deferments said after Pearl Harbor, college students were deferred only until their 18th b-day.
That doesn't make any sense. The vast majority don't start college until they are 18 or 19. With an upper cut of of age 18 for college deferment only a prodigy would have any chance of completing even one semester. There would be no point in enrolling at all.
You also have to understand, that's before government student loans or other government financial aid.
Likely 80%+ of college students in that era were from wealthy and/or politically connected families.
Not so fast... back in the day (I was born in 1940) college tuition and fees were much more reasonable, and young people could work at summer jobs and earn fair pay. It was entirely possible to save enough from one's earnings to pay a large portion of college expenses. Also, there were often student employment programs for part-time work during the school year, to help. It wasn't easy but it was possible, and many put themselves through college. Considering today's wide gap between what it costs, and what one can earn in casual labor, it's virtually impossible. (I worked and earned and went, so I know the situation back in the 50s-60s.)
Also, there were scholarships and grants from many sources, not from the feds. There were no student loans. It was considered idiotic to go deeply in debt to pay for college, unless you had a rich uncle. Banks wouldn't dream of such a thing. Now its just another subsidy from the feds to the banks, who have a free ride to lend money at high interest rates with absolutely no risk, guaranteed by the federal government.
I can't begin to explain just how different the atmosphere, the economic realities of those days were from today. As a kid, I worked for $1.00 to $1.25 an hour on ranch fields during irrigation and harvest seasons, and could save enough money to easily pay a semester's fees at a state college. With a modest scholarship and a bit here and there from family, I could finish the year without going in debt. Wages today are far, far less in actual value than they were 50-60 years ago. But nobody realizes that! So our arguments and reckonings are severely distorted by not having the perspective of just how far we've gone down the rabbit hole. The thought of paying $20-35K for a family car, or $50-70K for a farm pickup? Or $20-30K for a year in state school? Impossible!
and young people could work at summer jobs and earn fair pay.
Just don't take a summer job playing semi-pro baseball if you intend to compete in the Olympics back then. Just ask Jim Thorpe.
That was racism, pure and simple, and nothing to do with working one's way through college. As a side note, here in the Pacific NW, the only race deemed lower than a negro was the indian. The drunken, shiftless, unemployable, untrustworthy, sneakin' savage indian. There weren't enough negroes to hate up here (except in Tacoma,) but there were enough indians to go around to satisfy every white person's sense of superiority.
The drunken, shiftless, unemployable, untrustworthy, sneakin' savage indian.
That racist stereotype was not, and still not, unique to the PNW.
That was racism, pure and simple, and nothing to do with working one's way through college.
It was not racism, it was simply the rules for the Olympics at the time. And that actually continued to be the rules until fairly recently.
When they said the Olympics were for "Amateur Athletes", back then they really meant it. Being a professional in juts about any sport rendered you unqualified to participate. This also held true for many High School and College sports programs as well.
I used to be a serious bowler, and when bowling in adult leagues, I had to be very careful in the 1970's and 1980's to follow specific rules to keep my amateur status. And even though my dream was to be an Olympic skier, being a "professional bowler" would have rendered me uncapable of doing so.
That all was finally undone in the 1992 Olympics, when the entire boundary between Pro and Amateur was eliminated. But in the Thorpe era and for decades afterwards, those of us that participated in multiple sports (especially those outside of school like bowling and golf) had to be very careful to keep our amateur status.
When they said the Olympics were for "Amateur Athletes", back then they really meant it.
No, only the U.S. ever really meant it. Nearly every other country including the UK gave their Olympic hopefuls full time government jobs they didn't have to show up for so they could train full time.
They may not be competing for money prizes, or for professional teams, but sorry, when the government is paying you a full time salary to train for the Olympics, you are a pro athlete.
No, only the U.S. ever really meant it. Nearly every other country including the UK gave their Olympic hopefuls full time government jobs they didn't have to show up for so they could train full time.
They may not be competing for money prizes, or for professional teams, but sorry, when the government is paying you a full time salary to train for the Olympics, you are a pro athlete.
Oh, we did that also. However, the jobs did not involve sports themselves.
I myself served with Sergio Reyes, US Marine and a boxer in the 1992 Olympics. His actual job was Infantry, but he was basically assigned to the Mainside Gym, where he trained almost constantly.
And the same was done for those on US Olympic Teams. Qualify, and your "job" was to act as an ambassador to other countries and sporting programs. Or in sports like skiing, act as an equipment expert in working with manufacturers in making better skis, tennis racquets, etc.
The wall was finally ripped out primarily because of the Warsaw Pact. Since technically there were no "Professional Teams" in the Socialist Paradise, even those who played hockey or basketball year round were still technically "amateurs".
So the USSR would send athletes of professional quality to compete, where the US and most countries were sending their best college players. This is what made the 1980 "Miracle on Ice" such an upset, when the US beat the USSR hockey team (which had won gold in 4 consecutive Olympics).
And when the ban was lifted, the US sent the "Dream Team" (Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen of the Chicago Bulls, John Stockton and Karl Malone of the Utah Jazz, Magic Johnson of the Los Angeles Lakers, Larry Bird of the Boston Celtics, Patrick Ewing of the New York Knicks, Chris Mullin of the Golden State Warriors, David Robinson of the San Antonio Spurs, and Charles Barkley of the Philadelphia 76ers) were sent to Barcelona.
And as a result, the Communist countries have largely stopped stacking the deck with "Amateur Professionals". However, we do still have many cross-over athletes in our Olympic teams.
Of particular interest in the US bobsled teams in recruiting football players. Their high leg strength and body mass makes them excellent in being pusher men. Many of the most successful US bobsled teams have had NFL players on them.
Nearly every other country including the UK gave their Olympic hopefuls full time government jobs they didn't have to show up for so they could train full time.
That wasn't the Olympics. That was governments gaming the system. Jim Thorpe's mistake when he played semi-pro baseball during the summer was that he played under his real name. Other college athletes played under phony names to keep their amateur status.
the UK gave their Olympic hopefuls full time government jobs they didn't have to show up for so they could train full time.
That wasn't the UK I lived in.
Plenty of UK Olympic prospects had make-work jobs, but in the private sector. Some had jobs in the public sector but they tended to be sport-related and be part-time and allow plenty of time off for training. But the government didn't give them a free ride.
AJ
In 1960 my in state fees for the state university were ~$120 per semester.
That's $1,064 in today's dollars. Still cheap compared to education costs today.
I throw up when I hear politicians say they will pay off school loans. That's so unfair to those who paid their tuition or didn't go to college. But the worst part is that it doesn't address the root cause of the student debt. The extraordinarily high cost of universities. Politicians attack the pharmaceutical companies for the high cost of drugs, but not the colleges for their high costs. At least the drug companies spend a lot of money on R&D. What do the universities spend money on? Just the opposite. They get grants and donations. Sorry, but the high cost of colleges and paying off student loans with my tax dollars hit a nerve.
Student loans and government student aid are the reasons that college cost exploded.
that and the colleges paying huge salaries for stupid positions teaching garbage for the woke society groups.
that and the colleges paying huge salaries for stupid positions teaching garbage for the woke society groups.
Which is a direct result of the massive increase in college students caused by government subsidized student loans and other government funded financial aid.
They needed programs to keep pulling in tuition $$$ from students who couldn't cut it in STEM programs or more traditional liberal arts programs.
They needed programs to keep pulling in tuition $$$ from students who couldn't cut it in STEM programs or more traditional liberal arts programs.
They needed programs to keep pulling in tuition $$$ from students who couldn't cut it in STEM programs and could only ask if you wanted fries or a latte.
Fixed it for you.
While we are yammering on about gov't student aid and exploding college costs (and how about text books? Mandatory purchase for students, from the college bookstore, at inflated prices!) here's a real example of how costs can explode:
My elderly brother-in-law, in an assisted living center in north Idaho, requires kidney dialysis treatments three times a week. (By the way, private dialysis centers are one of the fastest growth sectors of the US economy; every town of 100 or more people seems to have a new dialysis center. Prior to Medicare/Medicaid, only the very wealthy could afford dialysis. I'm about to show you why!)
My wife is his power of attorney, and handles all of his medical affairs. Here's a statement for services rendered during the month of February, 2021.
02/01/21: $243.56 for laboratory non-routine dialysis
02/01/21: $264.42 "
02/01/21: $332.36 "
02/01/21: $448.26 "
02/01/21: $244.26 "
02/01/21: $262.98 "
02/01/21: $264.42 "
02/01/21: $202.42 "
02/01/21: $243.56 "
02/01/21: $202.42 "
02/01/21: $254.18 "
02/01/21: $561.78 "
02/01/21: $181.71 "
02/01/21: $424.91 "
02/15/21: $15,996.00 Drugs requiring specific ident-
02/26/21: $439.59 Laboratory non-routine dialysis
02/26/21: $91,553.04 Hemodialysis/Composite
TOTALS: $112,126.87
This is for ONE MONTH of 3-times weekly kidney dialysis for my brother-in-law in north Idaho, as billed to Medicaid/Medicare. (Yes, those dates are EXACTLY as shown on the report.)
Multiply that by 12 for one year, and it's well over a million dollars a year for one man. Point: take him off dialysis and he'll be dead within the month.
American medical care: your money, or your life.
Is it any wonder that a private dialysis lab opened up here in our small island town two years ago?
Also be aware, as I understand it, in Europe similar folks are encouraged to have a home dialysis machine so they can perform it themselves, daily, which has proven to yield longer survival times. Our guy goes in on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, then he gets his next treatment on Monday by which time he's in pretty sad shape.
THIS IS THE COST we are paying as a nation to an out-of-control private for-profit healthcare system that is pushing the boundaries of economic reality. How much longer can we endure this without it all crashing down? Until the currency printing presses run out of ink? Until the bearings seize up?
Chew on that, and extend it to the costs of higher education system.
By the way, the assisted living center costs $2,050 per month, because that is the maximum charge that Medicaid will pay in this case. When our bro was paying out of his savings, it was over $3,500/month, with NO nursing or medical services. Just a bed and three squares.
EDIT to add: Just in case somebody might think the dialysis billing for February this year was an anomaly, here's the total for January: $137,967.13. Of that, drugs were $10,664.00 and dialysis treatments were $99,182.46. The rest were assorted lab charges.
Before all the science and medical advances, people simply died. To some extent, maybe we were all better off. Why burden family and society when you're artificially being kept alive with no chance of recovery and with probably low quality of life?
When my sister was dying of lung cancer it got to a point where she said, enough was enough and let go. No more treatments.
He is very much enjoying his life in the assisted living center. He's alert and able to move freely; he's active in their social events, and the fact that he's one of the few men surrounded by women adds to his pleasure. Even at their advanced age, the gals aren't above a bit of flirting.
In Idaho, the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs have been turned over to private health insurance companies to administer. So our billing reports come from one of two in the Idaho program. Last year, an insurance rep asked my wife on the phone if her brother wouldn't be more comfortable in a hospice; to simply let go. (In other words, isn't it time to give up and just die?) No, my wife wouldn't consider authorizing his transfer, which would have to be done forcibly. He's enjoying his life, despite the treatment issues. Will he get better? No. Is it time for euthanasia? Who gets to decide that?
The point is not to ask American citizens if it's time to stop being a burden on society, simply because an out-of-control pricing structure has emptied their savings accounts.
Why not ask, when are costs too damned high? Instead of $120,000 a month for dialysis, is $250,000 too high? How about $500,000 a month? Where is the limit?
My point is this: the charges are NOT sustainable, under whatever plan you devise. There is universal agreement that the U.S. system of health care is dysfunctional. It needs fixing, now.
If the agreed solution is for us to return to dying at home with no treatment, then so be it. But most folks now live in apartments, so they'll need an extra bedroom for the death bed. Not many of us live in farmhouses with an extra bedroom upstairs, nor does the visiting doctor accept payment in pigs and chickens.
Where is the limit?
What insurance pays.
When I lost my dental insurance because my wife retired and I had to pay my dentist out of pocket, I told him I didn't have insurance and asked for a discount. You won't believe his answer. He charges me more than someone with insurance because the insurance companies negotiate a lower price. He said if he collected that amount from all his patients he would go out of business. Yeah right.
What? You'd expect him to drop out of his dentist buddy real estate investment group?
There will come a point when insurance companies cannot collect high enough premiums to make their mandatory profit margins to keep their investors satisfied, and they'll be forced to put caps on insurance payouts. And the negotiations will start; will that dentist concede and reduce his charges, etc. Already those of us in our senile years are faced with the grim fact that most health care providers now refuse new Medicare patients, and that's been going on for a long time. The only reason I was able to join our local clinic (due to good health; I didn't need them until recently) is because my wife was already enrolled with them so I was allowed. Otherwise, I'd be forced to go clinic-shopping until I found someone still accepting Medicare insurance. Even with that "free" (no we pay a chunk out of SS for Medicare premiums) we still pay nearly $550 a month for "supplemental" insurance to cover Medicare gaps. And most health care providers don't accept new ... and so it goes.
It is common knowledge that uninsured people (correct term: "self" insured) pay far higher charges for the same treatment as insured patients; the insurers negotiate the lower rates, and the health care provider gleefully "sticks it" to the self-payers. Unless, of course, you are a billionaire, in which case you tell your executive assistant to go negotiate a discount rate, and if it is refused, you'll buy the damned hospital and fire the entire billing/accounting department.
It's a fun discussion.
Getting back to the original post, concerning college and expenses: when did the United States decide that it is NOT in our best interest to have the greatest number of our youth educated to the highest of their talents and abilities? That instead, they are cash cows to drained to enrich the ruling class? Seems like a horribly short-sighted policy, to me. Kind of like slaughtering your entire herd for a fast sale, not bothering to wonder where next year's calf crop is coming from. Germany and other northern European nations make it extremely easy for their youth to get higher education. They must be thinking ahead, beyond the next quarterly dividend report.
when did the United States decide that it is NOT in our best interest to have the greatest number of our youth educated to the highest of their talents and abilities?
It was never explicitly decided that it was in our best interests in the first place.
We have never run universities as if we considered that as being in our best interest.
Pre WWII less than 10% of the population got a college degree. After they started trying to push everyone into college, even if it was beyond their "talents and abilities".
That reminds me of an argument I got into with a fellow member of a rural school board a long time ago. I was arguing that scheduling winter "away" games mid-week where our high school athletes would get back at 3 a.m. with classes later that morning, was not wise. (In our rural location, most other schools were a long drive distant.) It would likely have an adverse effect on their class achievements.
I was firmly advised that to be "a member of the team was sufficient; it virtually assured a 4.0 performance!" Her argument was persuasive; my suggestion was soundly defeated. Our high school athletic director gleefully scheduled mid-week away games at his convenience.
It defies logic, but when the hell did popular opinion ever have any logical demands required of it?
Academic expertise? Scientific expertise? Educated youth? We don't need NO steenking education. We gets all we needs when the time comes for it! Always did, always will!
I wasn't suggesting that it's not in our best interests to "have the greatest number of our youth educated to the highest of their talents and abilities".
However. We went from leaving too many educated short of "to the highest of their talents and abilities" to pushing far too many way beyond their talents and abilities.
Pushing people into college who don't have the talents and abilities to succeed in college does them no favors.
Pre WWII less than 10% of the population got a college degree. After they started trying to push everyone into college, even if it was beyond their "talents and abilities".
That is the majority of them unfortunately.
The push for college education started around 1972 or so. It ramped up from there. By the time I was just finishing up in 78/79, it was in full swing. Prior to that, blue collar labor wasn't considered a dirty phrase. Sometime in the 80's that changed. By the time I resurfaced in the states early 90's, blue collar labor carried the same connotation as neanderthal.
I didn't stick around long after that; only showing up off and on for various projects. Each time I returned, it was to a land I no longer recognized.
I can only look at the current state of things in profound befuddlement. How education in the US got to its current deplorable state is beyond me. The so called academia elites have apparently swallowed their own BS.
The reality check coming to the US is going to be exceptionally brutal.
Germany and other northern European nations make it extremely easy for their youth to get higher education
No they actually make it very hard to go to college. Probably that's why German levels of university education are about 20% lower than the US. High stakes testing weeds out the "undesirable" early in life.
It's interesting that the introduction of cost to attend college in England has led to an increase in college enrollment.
No they actually make it very hard to go to college. Probably that's why German levels of university education are about 20% lower than the US. High stakes testing weeds out the "undesirable" early in life.
You might do some research on that because it's not true. It's very hard to get comparable figures because in most cases different indicators are used that give huge differences in who is 'best' or 'worst'. And of course for some countries the numbers are maybe debatable (China). Overall the US doesn't compare that well to Scandinavia, Europe and Asia. It's because the US has a few very good universities that they come out good in some lists but if you check the nationwide education systems and the results it's a lot worse.
nationwide education systems
When you look at average SAT scores of Education Majors, it is lower than that of most other students. The top ten majors combined score is 1600 or higher, some are well over 1700. Education Majors are in the mid 1400s. Those are the graduates who are teaching our children how to learn. Perhaps current scores have changed, but I doubt it. The advantage of teaching as a career is 3 months off in the summer time. However most teachers need to pursue Masters degrees during the summer to reach better salaries, or to be able to continue to teach.
Yep, good education starts with good teachers. Don't have enough of those and you can poor in endless amounts of money and it still won't do any good.
good education starts with good teachers.
And a support structure at home to make sure homework is done, studying is done, etc. That's lacking in today's society with the many one-parent and two-working parent households. When the kid comes home from school, no one is there.
And a support structure at home to make sure homework is done, studying is done, etc. That's lacking in today's society with the many one-parent and two-working parent households. When the kid comes home from school, no one is there.
That's very important too, yes. Can't have one without the other for good education.
The top ten majors combined score is 1600 or higher, some are well over 1700
If a "perfect" score is 1600- 800 each on two tests - how does somebody score higher than that?
I'm sure he is using stats from the short time that the SAT had 3 parts and scored on a 2400 scale.
A perfect score can be higher than 1600 because they change the rules. Basically, the SAT shifted from a maximum score of 1600 (before 2005), to a maximum score of 2400 (2005-2015), to back down to a maximum of 1600 (2016-present).
A perfect score can be higher than 1600 because they change the rules.
"Here's The Average SAT Score For Every College Major
Natasha Bertrand Oct 24, 2014, 3:57 PM
student sat test studying
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Students who plan on majoring in multi/interdisciplinary studies tend to do better on the SAT than those who major in engineering or math, according to the College Board's 2014 SAT Report on College and Career Readiness.
Multi/interdisciplinary courses typically combine two or more academic disciplines, such as economics and history, in the study of a particular subject.
College Board took students' SAT scores and compiled them into a table showing how different prospective majors did on critical reading, writing, math, and overall.
The results are not too different from the College Board's 2013 report. Here we've ranked majors in order of highest combined, critical reading, math, and writing scores, respectively.
While the SAT is not a perfect test, some notable trends emerge. Students planning to major in multi/interdisciplinary studies have the highest combined reading and writing scores, which makes sense as this major encompasses a wide array of talents.
Students with an interest in the physical sciences (chemistry, physics, etc.) had the second highest combined scores, which also makes sense as the physical sciences tends to be a highly demanding field that draws in some of the most disciplined students.
Here is a ranking by combined scores:
combined
Based on data from research.collegeboard.org"
My computer won't let me show the table of scores, you could find it if you search for the average SAT score for every college major.
In Idaho, the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs have been turned over to private health insurance companies to administer
All Medicare fee for service claims have always been administered by private insurance companies contracted by CMS. Medicaid are state plans and all have also likely always been administrated by insurance companies.
The hospice offers additional services and the regulations require that the care manager offer it. It's not euthanasia.
In 1960 my in state fees for the state university were ~$120 per semester.
When I started the University of Washington (Seattle) in 1962 the in-state tuition was $100 per quarter. I was "out of state" and paid $300 per quarter.
Not everybody joined or were drafted in 1942. Quite a few men, my father for one entered service in 43 and 44. So they were in college in the early 40's. I'd bet the lean years were 44 to 45.
Not everybody joined or were drafted in 1942. Quite a few men, my father for one entered service in 43 and 44.
He's starting college in Aug, 1944.
Colleges did not just shut their doors during WW2 or Vietnam. Some form of passing/deferment had to occur or there would have been no students other than women.
This gives you an idea of what it was like. Also mentioned is that the freshmen class was the largest as most of the others had reached 18. Remember in this time the highest grade in school was the eleventh and so the average age of HS grads would have been 16 or 17.
From the Harvard Crimson : https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1956/12/7/college-life-during-world-war-ii/
Remember in this time the highest grade in school was the eleventh and so the average age of HS grads would have been 16 or 17.
Where was that true? Certainly no place in the northeast.
Where was that true? Certainly no place in the northeast.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1963/demo/p23-009.html
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/teaching-resource/statistics-education-america-1860-1950
For those that completed a high school education in 1950, the majority were 17 years old or younger. However, there was only 82 percent of those under 18 attending high school to begin with. That number further drops when taking into account the number of drop outs who quit to take jobs while in high school.
For those that completed a high school education in 1950, the majority were 17 years old or younger. However, there was only 82 percent of those under 18 attending high school to begin with. That number further drops when taking into account the number of drop outs who quit to take jobs while in high school.
That's still true. I know tons of kids who graduate at 17 and most of my friends in high school in the 60s were 17 at graduation. I was referring to 11th grade being the end of high school - that wasn't correct.
I was referring to 11th grade being the end of high school - that wasn't correct.
Not in the US, but there are countries where it is true. The Philippines for example.
I found this (I bolded the last sentence):
"After the United States entered World War II, amendments to the Selective Training and Service Act on December 20, 1941, made all men between the ages of 20 and 44 liable for military service, and required all men between the ages of 18 and 64 to register. The terminal point of service was extended to the duration of the conflict plus six months. Another amendment signed on November 13, 1942, made the registered 18- and 19-year-olds liable for military service."
So at the time my MC enters college, men 18 and above are required to register and are liable for military service. But that doesn't mean even though they didn't have a deferment that they were drafted. It also means there might be more women in the college than men. I can live with that.
Colleges did have severe decline in enrollment but various factors kept them open.
They didn't draft everyone eligible immediately. They wouldn't have had the ability to train them. Even draft eligible people sat around for a long time to be called. My father-in-law wasn't drafted until 1944 when he was 20 and had done two years of college.
For a while both the Navy and Army stuffed colleges with training programs putting a few hundred thousand men into colleges.
The V-12 Navy College Training Program was designed to supplement the force of commissioned officers in the United States Navy during World War II. Between July 1, 1943, and June 30, 1946, more than 125,000 men were enrolled in the V-12 program in 131 colleges and universities in the United States. V-12 was similar to the Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP) which ran from 1942 to 1944 with a goal of providing more than 200,000 Army officers
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/V-12_Navy_College_Training_Program
My father was in the ASTP at Xavier. My uncle went to college in the V12 program.
Here is an article on life at Harvard in WW2.
Freshmen Dominate
The freshman class soon dominated undergraduate life. Most of the other students had succumbed to the draft. Squeezed into a few Houses they tried to grab what education they could before turning 18. While the Yard was given over to the military, Kirkland and Eliot Houses became the headquaters for a new Navy program, V-12. The Army took over control of Leverett and Winthrop Houses, filling them with a counterpart to V-12, ASTP. Adams, Lowell, and Dunster remained the only civilian sanctuaries, but the latter could not survive past June of 1944 when the Army Air Force took over.
V-12 and ASTP members, however, doubled as undergraduate students besides being in the military. They received their degrees and commisions at the same time, and were kept quite busy in the process. A typical day in Eliot House began at 0600 (6 a.m.) with a two mile run and calisthentics. By 0710 the future naval officers had swabbed the decks, cleaned themselves and their rooms, and stood inspection. Classes started at 0800, continuing through the morning. Physical drill followed dinner. Buglers sounded taps at 2315.
With such a schedule, life became just another almost forgotten peace-time amusement. As for college pranks, "the students were too damned frightened," according to Arthur Darby Nock, Frothingham Professor of the History of Religion and a resident of Eliot all through the war. "It was like a ship on shore. The boys probably knew that the least bit of jibbery pokery, and they were back in the ranks," he says.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1956/12/7/college-life-during-world-war-ii/
Back to the original topic, it also depended on what your draft number was, and what your major was.
If you were in your first year of college, or taking a generic major (agriculture, history, literature, etc), then the odds of being drafted were rather high during WWII.
However, if you were half way through your degree in medicine or advanced engineering, then odds are you would be deferred. As they knew your getting your degree was of much more value to the country and war than pulling you out early and putting a rifle in your hands.
Plus, those in ROTC and other commissioning programs were also left to graduate, so they could be pulled in as officers in later years.
And some majors were simply too important and pretty much automatically given deferments. Like if your major was aviation engineer or fluid mechanics. Not much use in the Army Air Corps or Navy, but invaluable to companies like Hughes, Boeing, Northrup, Kaiser, or the dozens of other companies churning out war material.
Plus, the draft and enlisting during WWII was unlike almost any other time in US history. We actually stopped taking "enlistments" in early 1942, and almost 90% after that were drafted. That was simply for scheduling as they could only process so many people at a time through training. You could still "enlist", but all that did was tell the draft board what branch of service (and maybe specialty) you wanted. You still went home and waited for your draft notice.
About the only way to enlist immediately after early 1942 was to have a critically needed skill. Logistics, medical, and pilots were always in demand, and almost guaranteed you got called up immediately. As were prior service veterans.
Want to be a tank driver or infantry, you went home and waited months or years until there was a slot open for you and then you were called up and sent to training.
Back to the original topic, it also depended on what your draft number was, and what your major was.
Thanks, your post made a great deal of sense.
Thanks, your post made a great deal of sense.
I actually have done a lot of research into this very topic over the years.
Being able to "Enlist" largely ended by April of 1942, and was officially closed be Executive Order in December 1942. At it's height, the US military could only process around 200,000 people through basic training in a month (6 weeks to 3 months). So unless a skill was badly needed, for scheduling purposes you were basically put in a pool of those to be called up when there was space available.
And in the end, almost 10 million were entered into the service during WWII. But the biggest bottleneck was in training them. The military can only take so many people at a time, and they must be spaced out fairly precisely.
Case in point, in August 2007 when I joined the Army, there was a huge push for prior service. The demand was so large that they set up a special program with what was basically a "Refresher course" for those to join. Originally taught in New Mexico by the New Mexico National Guard, the demand grew so large that when I was in processing, they opened up a second course run by Active Duty at Fort Sill.
We all processed in at For Sill, and my processing "platoon" was massive, over 350 of us in total. But in the final day, we were broken in half, with half of us being sent to New Mexico, and the other remaining in Oklahoma.