History of Financial Aid

The Development of Financial Aid from World War II to the

Mid-1970s

Patrick Thomas

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

THE DEVELOPMENT OF FINANCIAL AID FROM WORLD WAR II TO THE MID-1970S 2

During the final year of the World War II, discharged

members of the United States military were struggling to find

employment or funding to further their education. Through a

major public outcry the first student aid program for a large

population, the G.I. Bill, was established (Haynes & Bush, 2011).

The decades following consisted of new types of student financial

aid including the National Defense Educational Loans for specific

areas of study, the creation of the Work-Study Program under the

Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as well as the groundbreaking

Higher Education Act of 1965 which created federally subsidized

loans, the Guaranteed Student Loan Program, and opportunities for

all types of students (Haynes & Bush, 2011; Archibald, 2002).

The progression of financial aid specifically from the end of

World War II to the mid-1970s not only produced effective

programs similar to modern student aid, but also played a key


role in changing the emphasis from the institution to the

specific needs of each student.

Financial assistance for the American college student

originates back to the mid-seventeenth century during the

colonial college era. The first record of financial assistance

was in the form of a scholarship offered at Harvard in 1643

(Haynes & Bush, 2011). The scholarship totaling one hundred

pounds was donated by Lady Anne Mowlson of London and was

intended to help “some poor scholler [sic]” with their college

expenses (Kruse-Crocker, 2008, pp. 3). Although the foundation

was built in the mid-1600s, Harvard established the first student

loan program in 1840, providing a more systematic approach to

financial assistance (Kruse-Crocker, 2008).

Later in the nineteenth century, the United States

government would become stakeholders of higher education. In

1867, the United States government authorized the creation of the

Department of Education, thus marking the beginning of financial

contributions (although limited) to higher education (Kruse-

Crocker, 2008). However, despite the fact that the government

began to make investments in higher education, the majority of


financial assistance available to students came from the direct

support of an institution’s budget (Haynes & Bush, 2011).

In regards to financial aid in the present time, the time

period from the mid-1940s to the early 1970s had a large impact

on various student aid programs, regulations, and opportunities

still in existence today. Throughout the aforementioned decades,

key events including the creation of the G.I. Bill for veterans,

implementation of the college work-study program, and the

transferring of reward recipients all occurred and evolved

financial aid into an opportunity for students of all

demographics. While all of these occurrences played important

roles in the improvement of student aid, the Servicemen

Readjustment Act of 1944 was the first program to expand

financial assistance to a larger population.

The primary goal behind the enactment of the Servicemen

Readjustment Act of 1944 was to assist returning World War II

veterans financially through payments for education, guaranteed

loans for a home, and/or guaranteed financing for farm ownership

(Haynes & Bush, 2011). While the act included these benefits,

the final product was a combination of two separate proposals.


Commonly referred to as the “G.I. Bill of Rights,” the veteran

benefits program was created “not by grand design, but quite by

accident” (Humes, 2006, p.5). Two parties independent of one

another, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the American

Legion introduced their own version of the veteran’s benefits.

President Roosevelt’s plan proposal was to include every

American citizen in the “Founding Fathers’ original vision of a

just American” (Humes, 2006, p.5). However, in order to launch a

completely new program that aims to benefit such a large

population, President Roosevelt planned to first offer benefits

to returning World War II veterans, followed by using the

momentum gain of the G.I. Bill to expand the program offering to

non-military citizens (Humes, 2006). Roosevelt’s first phase of

this plan, the “Second Bill of Rights,” was introduced on January

10, 1944 during the President’s annual State of the Union address

to the American citizens. Roosevelt’s proposal aimed to increase

opportunities by providing rewarding jobs, livable wages,

satisfactory living, health care, education, and retirement

benefits as guaranteed rights to all citizens, instead of to


those only who could afford these benefits (Humes, 2006, pp. 4-

5).

The second proposal was also presented on January 10, 1944

by the American Legion, which was also considered to be the “most

powerful veterans organization” of this era (Humes, 2006, p. 5).

Contrasting from President Roosevelt’s proposal, the American

Legion presented ideas for veterans of the United States Military

that were more modest. Referred to as the “Bill of Rights for

G.I. Joe and Jane,” the goal of the American Legion was to

compensate servicemen for their lost time and opportunities, as

well as offer a lineup of government-subsidized loans, benefits

for unemployed soldiers, and a complimentary year of education or

training for those who qualified (Humes, 2006, p.5).

While both President Roosevelt’s “Second Bill of Rights” and

the American Legion’s “Bill of Rights for G.I. Joe and Jane” each

had positive attributes, there were also characteristics of each

proposal that were unrealistic. With the presence of two

proposals that had promising goals and provisions, the bill

became a victim of much debate within Congress (Whitney, 2009).

The highly controversial bill was nearly stalled by the House of


Representatives and Senate, as the members of each governing body

debated over the provisions for several months (Whitney, 2009).

Although the majority of members of the Legislative branch had

differing views of the potential bill, the U.S. citizens also had

conflicting views.

There were many citizens that shunned the idea of paying

unemployed veterans a $20 per week stipend because there was

speculation that doing so would diminish each soldier’s incentive

to look for employment in the community (Whitney, 2009). Others

questioned the idea of sending “battle-hardened veterans” to

colleges and universities because many soldiers were uneasy with

low spirits, and also because higher education was still a

privilege mainly reserved for the rich at this point in history

(Whitney, 2009, p. 4). Although differences and disagreements

were apparent, commonalities among members of the government and

the rest of the nation existed. A heavy majority of people

agreed that something needed to be enacted to veterans adjust

into normal civilian life, mainly because there were multiple

instances within the past decades where the country failed to

assist and keep promises to discharged veterans who were


returning home (Haynes & Bush, 2011). For example, during the

months leading up to and following World War I, discharged

veterans received a one-time allowance of approximately $60 and a

train ticket home (Whitney, 2009). Another instance occurred

during the Great Depression in the early- to mid-1930s, where

many veterans found difficulty in surviving the tough economic

times (Whitney, 2009).

After the considerations of past veterans’ hardships as well

as five months of debate and negotiations, the Servicemen’s

Readjustment Act was signed by President Roosevelt on June 22,

1944 (Humes, 2006). The bill’s key provisions, which were

carried out by the Veterans Administration, included benefits

related to education and training, loan guaranty for homes, farms

and businesses, as well as an unemployment stipend (Whitney,

2009). The results of the act had large impacts on higher

education enrollment and demographics. By 1947, veterans

accounted for nearly half of all college admissions at 49%, and

even further by 1956, almost 8 million (out of 16 million total)

veterans had participated in an education or training program

funded by the government (Whitney, 2009).


While the implementation of the G.I. Bill benefitted

veterans of the United States military, the impact of this unique

enactment was much more monumental than initially expected. The

G.I. Bill made higher education a possibility for the average

citizen “more than any other single event in U.S. history”

(Haynes & Bush, 2011, p. 397). As described by Wilkinson (2005)

the increased access to colleges and universities was no longer

dependent on social status, personal wealth, or legacy (Haynes &

Bush, 2011). Instead of remaining a privilege to the rich, the

G.I. Bill evolved higher education into opportunities for an

entirely different generation of new students with new ideas, all

of which became eligible because of their services to their

country (Haynes & Bush, 2011).

Upon the completion of the veterans benefits program,

President Roosevelt believed that the G.I. Bill was only a

precursor to a much larger movement that would offer education

benefits to all citizens. However, within a year President

Roosevelt passed away and the vision of universal education

benefits vanished (Humes, 2006). Instead of those benefits being

offered to all citizens, the country was headed in a completely


different direction after World War II towards the politics

dealing with the Cold War, anti-Communist movements, and civil

rights conflicts (Humes, 2006).

While the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 was the

first offering of financial aid benefits to a large population,

the National Defense Education Act of 1958 would become the first

federal program that was available to all students who met a

certain criteria. In the midst of the Cold War, there was much

tension, distrust, and competition between the United States and

the Soviet Union, both whom were trying to reach space and more

importantly the moon first (Gouwens, 2009). On October 4, 1957,

the Soviet Union gained credibility in the competition with the

launching of Sputnik I, which was the first artificial satellite

to orbit the Earth (Gouwens, 2009). With the Sputnik I launch,

the United States was shocked at the realization that the nation

was not as superior to the Soviet Union as originally anticipated

(Gouwens, 2009). The aforementioned failure to reach space first

had created a new perspective not just for United States

lawmakers, but also for its citizens.


Before the Soviet Union’s successful launch, there had been

many calls for improving the instruction of mathematics and

sciences in higher education, however the launching of Sputnik I

created a public outcry in efforts to place blame for the Soviet

Union taking first place in the “space race” (Gouwens, 2009, p.

7). In response to both the launch and the public criticism,

Congress began holding hearings and discussions to determine how

the United States could be competitive in the future and what

could be improved (Gouwens, 2009). As a result of an identified

shortfall within mathematics and science education, Congress

enacted the National Defense Education Act of 1958 (Gouwens,

2009).

The main purpose of the National Defense Act, as previously

mentioned, was to ensure that individuals were being highly

trained to further their knowledge of mathematics, sciences, and

foreign language knowledge (Gouwens, 2009). Furthermore, the

provided support offered through loans to college students was

aimed to help America compete with the Soviet Union in the

science and technical fields (Gouwens, 2009). The education

loans were formally known as the National Defense Student Loan


Program, which were established under Title II of the act (Code

of Federal Regulations, 1972). The act also implemented the

“National Defense Student Loan Fund” which served the purpose of

providing long-term, low-interest loans to intellectually

qualified students in need of financial assistance at

participating institutions of higher education (Code of Federal

Regulations, 1972). Overall, the National Defense Education Act

provided more than a billion dollars of federal funds to improve

the educational system of the United States, which includes

primary, secondary, and post-secondary education institutions

(Gouwens, 2009).

Aside from being the first federal program to offer

educational loans to students pursuing mathematics, science,

and/or foreign language degrees, the National Defense Act was

also the first comprehensive federal legislation that directly

linked education to the strength and effectiveness of national

defense (Gouwens, 2009). The act was also impactful because it

served as a precursor to the first federal student aid program

that was determined based off of the needs of low-income

students, commonly referred to as the Perkins Loan Program


(Kruse-Crocker, 2008). While the National Defense Act of 1958

assisted in the progression of financial aid for students of

higher education, socio-economic issues set the scene for

additional legislations to improve financial access to post-

secondary institutions.

In 1962, politically active author Michael Harrington

released his best-selling book “The Other America: Poverty in the

United States,” which exposed the realities of millions of

Americans living below what came to be known as the “poverty

line” (Olson, 1999, p. 145). As a result of Harrington’s

published work, citizens and U.S. officials became more aware of

the growing poverty throughout the country. After the

assassination of President John F. Kennedy, President Lyndon B.

Johnson announced his desire to create a “Great Society” in which

the citizens of the United States could share the wealth

available throughout the country (Clark, 2011, p. 147).

President Johnson then took the initiative to propose an

antipoverty program to diminish the rising poverty levels. On

January 8, 1964, President Johnson called for a “war on poverty”

during his State of the Union Address and Congress eventually


responded by enacting the Economic Opportunity Act in August of

1964 (Olson, 1999).

The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 created several

federally funded programs that were designed to “eliminate the

paradox of poverty” by opening up new opportunities for education

and training, additional employment opportunities, and the chance

for all citizens of the United States to live in decency and

dignity (Clark, 2011, p. 147). The program was highly beneficial

during its lifespan allocating nearly $1 billion for a variety of

work training, which includes higher education funding (Olson,

1999). Instead of the funds being directly disbursed by the

federal government, each individual state was responsible for

rationing out all available funds (Gillette, 2010). The Economic

Opportunity Act also created the formula used to determine the

amount of funds allocated to states under Title II of the act,

which was based on three statistics; the total unemployment

within the given state, total number of welfare recipients within

a state’s borders, and the total number of children in families

with an annual income of less than $1,000 (Gillette, 2010).


Perhaps the largest impact of the Economic Opportunity Act

of 1964 was the creation of the College-Work Study Program within

post-secondary institutions. Through the Work-Study Program,

college-age students that came from low-income

families/households were given the opportunity to earn much

needed income to study at an institution of higher education

(Gillette, 2010; Phifer & Spurlock, 1966). The part-time

opportunities were also designed to assist in the “development of

worthwhile work experience” (Phifer & Spurlock, 1966, p. 16).

While the Work-Study Program was funded by states and

allocated to participating institutions, the geographic location

of the work experience(s) could vary. Work-Study positions were

allowed to be located on-campus working directly for an office or

department at an institution, off-campus with a public non-profit

agency, or off-campus with a private non-profit agency (Phifer &

Spurlock, 1966). Students can be employed through off-campus

arrangements in such programs as Community Action programs, as

well as tutoring primary and/or secondary education students in

the mathematics or English subject areas (Phifer & Spurlock,

1966). Other off-campus Work-Study positions can also include


working in health, educational, recreational, welfare, or closely

related fields (Phifer & Spurlock, 1966).

Throughout the past two decades leading up to this point,

the continuous assumption is that socio-economic and community

problems are solved and/or prevented through higher education

instruction however, without proper financial assistance to the

institution and students those issues may cease to disappear.

Title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965 was aimed to provide

financial assistance to colleges and universities to strengthen

their community service programs both on- and off-campus (Phifer

& Spurlock, 1966). “Community service programs” are defined by

the act as an educational program, activity, or service (Phifer &

Spurlock, 1966, p. 12). Furthermore, community service programs

can also include research programs, a university extension, or a

continued education offering that is specifically designed to

“assist in the solution of various community problems in rural,

urban, or suburban areas, with particular emphasis on urban and

suburban problems” (Phifer & Spurlock, 1966, p. 12).

While institutions are given the funding to help improve and

maintain great communities, it is their students that play the


key role in planning, implementing, and carrying out the

improvement programs. The Higher Education Act was also designed

for the purpose of not only assisting institutions, but also the

people of the United States in their efforts towards the

“solution of community problems such as housing, poverty,

government, recreation, employment, youth opportunities,

transportation, health, and land use” (Phifer & Spurlock, 1966,

p. 12).

Aside from the United States Government’s efforts to improve

community relations, economic situations, and volunteer efforts

through financial subsidies, Title IV of the Higher Education Act

also systemized student loan programs and the regulations that

follow. Title IV, formally known as the “Student Assistance”

section, of the act consisted of four individual components;

Educational Opportunity Grants, low-interest insured student

loans and the Guaranteed Student Loan Program, extensions and

amendments to the Work-Study Program, and amendments to the

National Defense Student Loan program (Archibald, 2002; Phifer &

Spurlock, 1966).


The first component of Title IV of the Higher Education Act

refers to Educational Opportunity Grants. Educational

Opportunity Grants (summarized in Part A of Title IV) are federal

grants which were provided to qualified high school graduates to

assist in making the benefits of higher education available to

them (Phifer & Spurlock, 1966). The establishment of Educational

Opportunity Grants also placed responsibility on the institutions

enrolling the students. While the federal government provided

the grants, the institution was in charge of administering the

funds, selecting the student recipients, and determining the

overall amount of the grant (Archibald, 2002, pp. 33-34).

Furthermore, the aforementioned high school graduates were

required to come from low-income households who could not afford

to pay for an education without the help of these grants from the

federal government (Phifer & Spurlock, 1966). Similar to other

federally funded programs from the past, the students who

received Educational Opportunity Grants were also required to

meet additional requirements. Furthermore, the Higher Education

Act also enabled the Commissioner of Education to make payments

to institutions of higher education who were eligible for the


specified grants, therefore institutions could receive additional

funding for their current and potential students at any point as

long as certain criteria was met (Phifer & Spurlock, 1966).

Under “Part B” of Title IV of the Higher Education Act, the

Guaranteed Student Loan Program was established to include loan

guarantees to prospective and current students (Archibald, 2002).

The loans awarded through the Guaranteed Student Loan Program

were administered by the private financial sector, however the

federal government provided the lenders insurance in the

unfortunate case of student default (Archibald, 2002). Low-

interest insured student loans were created under the second

provision under Title IV of the act, but also included were

potential incentives for institutions funding its students. Part

B of Title IV authorizes the Commissioner of Education to

encourage States and non-profit, private institutions to

establish loan insurance programs for students within those

eligible institutions (Phifer & Spurlock, 1966, p. 17). In

addition to assisting and encouraging institutions to provide

student loan insurance, the federal government was also

authorized to provide a federally-sponsored student loan


insurance program for those students who did not have “reasonable

access to State or private student loan insurance programs”

(Phifer & Spurlock, 1966, pp. 17-18).

Part B also authorized the Commissioner of Education to pay

a portion of interest on loans of qualifying students, thus

creating the first federally subsidized loan program in the

United States (Phifer & Spurlock, 1966). Similar to various

types of loans, the administered student loans were also subject

to fluctuations in the markets and interest rates. Following a

student’s graduation after the Higher Education Act, the

government paid the difference between the low interest rate set

on the loan and the overall market interest rate (Archibald,

2002).

The Work-Study Program, originally created under the

Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, was amended and extended

through the third component of the Higher Education Act of 1965.

“Part C” of the act transferred the Work-Study Program from the

Office of Economic Opportunity to the Office of Education,

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (Phifer & Spurlock,

1966, p. 18). The available opportunities available through the


Work-Study Program were also expanded through the Higher

Education Act, where more opportunities were made available

however, first preference was to be given to students from low-

income families (Phifer & Spurlock, 1966).

The final part of the Higher Education Act of 1965 was in

regards to the amendments of the National Defense Student Loan

Program. Loan repayment requirements were slightly altered

through the act, changing the requirement of repayment to begin

nine months after the student graduated from the institution. An

additional amendment to the National Defense Student Loan program

was the inclusion of economics, civics, and industrial arts as

crucial subjects covered under the financial assistance program.

Overall, the provisions and programs enacted under the

Higher Education Act of 1965 combined grants, work opportunities,

and loans to help full-time students pay for their tuition and

living costs accrued while attending a post-secondary institution

(Marchese, 1997). By providing the ease of financial access to

the general system of higher education and specific

institution(s) of their choice, students were introduced to a

“level playing field” between public and private institutions


(Marchese, 1997, p. 12). However, while the act represented a

monumental change in federal policies toward the funding of

higher education, the act consisted of conflicting views of how

education should be financed (Archibald, 2002).

The majority of the titles of the Higher Education Act

provided financial aid to the institution for specific reasons

including renovating facilities and additional resources in the

library (Archibald, 2002). Although additional funding to

institutions is beneficial, only Title IV of the act provided aid

directly to the students of higher education (Archibald, 2002).

Specifically, the House of Representatives reported that in the

fiscal year of 1966, 68% of all funds administered under the

Higher Education Act were devoted to institutional aid instead of

to student aid (Archibald, 2002). Furthermore, as debates

regarding institutional vs. student aid, many political and

educational figures expressed their opinions on the matter.

Clark Kerr, former President of the University of California at

Berkeley, rejected the idea of giving grants to states, accepted

the idea of granting financial aid to the student, but considered

granting aid to institutions under certain circumstances


(Archibald, 2002). Other representatives including professors,

Chancellors, Presidents, and politicians all took part in the on-

going debate, however, in 1972 the Higher Education Act was

amended in favor of awarding financial aid to the student instead

of the institution (Slaughter, 2004; Archibald, 2002).

In regards to student assistance programs, there were three

concerns that were considered during the 1972 Higher Education

Act Amendments; how funding decisions were made, student

knowledge about financial packages/programs, and how the amount

of funds allocated to each state were determined (Archibald,

2002).

The differing criteria used by post-secondary institutions

raised a problem related to inconsistencies with how they

determined the financial need of their students. Specifically,

some private institutions participate in various scholarship

programs (e.g. College Scholarship Service) which requires little

attention when designating funds, while other institutions had to

set up “financial aid bureaucracies” on their campus (Archibald,

2002, p. 38).


The second critique of the Higher Education Act was the

information students received about financial aid packages and

programs. Through the aid created under Title IV under a campus-

based financial aid, a student needed to be admitted to an

institution prior to determining how much and what kind of aid

would be available (Archibald, 2002). The issue was that under

existing programs the lower-income students had to first apply to

specific schools to qualify for aid, however high school

performance and graduation was discovered by the U.S. Department

of Health, Education, and Welfare to be affected by student

perceptions of college costs (Archibald, 2002).

The final flaw in a campus-based program dealt with how

institutions were determining the amount of funds given to each

individual student. The initial legislation allocated funds to

each state based upon the percentage of national full-time

college enrollment within that specific state (Archibald, 2002).

By calculating total funding by a general percentage, the program

did not take need or the variation of average income into

consideration (Archibald, 2002).


In 1972, the Higher Education Act Amendments not only

transferred the aid from the institution to the student, but also

began the “process of marketization” where institutions were

essentially competing for federally subsidized student tuition

dollars (Slaughter, 2004, p. 35). The Amendments played a large

role in evolving higher education through a “student-driven

market” that compelled institutions to focus more on student

needs (Marchese, 1997, pp. 12-13). The alterations of the

Educational Opportunity Grant also played a key role addressing

and potentially solving the three main concerns with the original

Higher Education Act. The design of the new “Basic Economic

Opportunity Grants” (which would later be known as “Pell Grants”)

were administered in Washington at a centralized location,

provided eligibility information to prospective students, and

were determined based on the need of each specific state

(Archibald, 2002).

Student financial aid has become a key determinant for

millions of prospective students throughout the United States

each year. The various packaging and programs including federal

loans, grants, institutional loans, and availability of Work-


Study positions can play a large role in a student’s decision to

attend a specific institution. Although the current programs in

existence today effective, many issues with those programs

including who administered them, repayment terms, and aid

provisions sometimes took decades to adjust. While problems did

exist, the continuous government legislations helped evolve

financial assistance programs toward a philosophy primarily

focused on the needs of the student, as opposed to determining

financial need based on the state or institutional average.


References

Archibald, R. B. (2002). Redesigning the financial aid system why colleges and

universities should switch roles with the federal government. Retrieved

from http://books.google.com/books?

id=ooBX9Uuk20cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=archibald+2002+redesi

gning&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7UCdUry2N8TlsAT_u4KoAg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v

=onepage&q=archibald%202002%20redesigning&f=false

Clark, C. L. (2011). The American economy a historical encyclopedia. Santa

Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Code of federal regulations (45: Public Welfare ed.). (1972).

Washington D.C.: Office of the Federal Register, National

Archives and Records Service, General Services

Administration.

Gillette, M. L. (2010). Launching the war on poverty: an oral history (2nd

ed.). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Gouwens, J. A. (2009). Education in crisis a reference handbook. Santa

Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Haynes, R. M., & Bush, V. B. (2011). Student Financial Aid

Practice. Rentz's student affairs practice in higher education (4th ed.,


pp. 396-429). Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.

Humes, E. (2006). Over here: how the G.I. Bill transformed the American dream.

Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?

id=evL7fchzir4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=servicemen+readjustment+ac

t&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DyKNUojXBZel4APwv4HoCg&ved=0CHEQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepag

e&q=servicemen%20readjustment%20act&f=false

Kruse-Crocker, M. (2008). Financial aid type and student need level as

predictors of undergraduate persistence at the University of Denver. Ann

Arbor, MI: ProQuest.

Marchese, T. J. (1997). U.S. Higher Education in the Postwar Era:

Expansion and Growth. U.S. Society & Values, 2(5), 10-16.

Retrieved November 19, 2013, from

http://books.google.com/books?

id=ZqJMhIorHasC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&

cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Olson, J. S. (1999). Historical dictionary of the 1960s. Westport, CT:

Greenwood Press.

Phifer, B. M., & Spurlock, D. (1966). Federal-State programs for

occupational education & training. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

http://books.google.com/books?id=evL7fchzir4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=servicemen+readjustment+act&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DyKNUojXBZel4APwv4HoCg&ved=0CHEQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=servicemen%20readjustment%20act&f=false




Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new

economy: markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Whitney, J. D. (2009). Military Education Guide. Bethesda, MD:

GovAmerica.

History of Financial Aid

Documents

Transcript of History of Financial Aid